Luke 19:28–23:56

If the Lord was going to make those who followed Him take up the cross, He could not but bear it Himself. He went before His sheep in this path of self-denial and devotion, to prepare the way. He went alone. It was a path His people had not yet walked, nor could they, until He had walked it first.

The journey now started again, and the Lord led the way, going ahead and going up to Jerusalem. They had about seventeen miles to travel. After leaving the fertile region around Jericho, the road ran through desolate country. It climbed from the Jordan valley up to the neighbourhood of the capital. Jericho lies 820 feet below sea level, and Jerusalem 2,593 feet above it.

In Luke's Gospel His gradual approach to the city is traced more clearly than in either Matthew or Mark. See Luke 9:51; 13:22, 33; 17:11; 18:31; 19:1, 11, 28. He seems to linger from stage to stage. He is not willing to hasten the doom of the nation, because what was to happen to Him there was to fill up their sin and leave them for judgment. He was waiting to be gracious. It is the same now, in this age: the patience of God in not sending Jesus is salvation, since He is not willing that any should perish.

Next follows the approach to Jerusalem. He is the Messiah indeed, but Son of Man. He presents Himself according to the prophecies that had gone before, even when they are not quoted word for word. And He does so right after the parable had taught in full that the opposition to Him was deliberate, wilful and final. For it was not only that His citizens, the Jews, despised Him, though He came in humiliation for the deepest purposes of divine love. They hated Him, and sent a message after Him, saying, "We do not want this man to reign over us."

The King of Israel was presenting Himself to Jerusalem as her King. He had never done that before, though He was born King of the Jews. It is true that His rejection and death were close at hand, but Jerusalem had to reject Him as her King. So on this occasion He presented Himself as King.

As He continued His "going up to Jerusalem," the crowd of disciples look ahead to the triumph of the coming day. They praise Him, saying, "Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!" (v. 38)… The ascent of Solomon so astonished the queen of Sheba that "there was no more spirit in her." In the same way, the ascent of the Son of God filled His disciples with praise to God.

Luke tells us that the colt was the one the Lord had need of. He tells the disciples to go and untie it, and more than that, to bring it to Jesus. That is a word which older believers, and all who seek to serve the Lord, should take to heart. Can we, under the command of the Lord, bring in a ministry that sets affections free for His service?

He had declared what the kingdom was — what it would be. He now comes to present it for the last time in His own Person to the people of Jerusalem, according to the prophecy of Zechariah. All is gathered round His entrance. Jerusalem is in the day of her visitation, and she does not know it.

Now He moves toward that end on purpose, though the way there meant rejection and death. He came near Bethphage, which means "the house of unripe figs." That pictures Israel being unready to receive Him. He came near Bethany, which means "the house of affliction." That pictures how His own people treated Him. Then He sent two of His disciples to a nearby village.

The "house of dates," a village on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, about two miles from Jerusalem, near the road to Jericho. It was where Lazarus, Martha, and Mary lived, in whose house the Lord found a resting place, among those whom He loved, and who were always ready to welcome Him.

From the same place He had entered Jerusalem as their King, according to this prophet (Zech. 9:9), riding on a donkey's colt. On that same Mount of Olives He sat in Matthew 24, surrounded by His Jewish disciples… From that same mountain He went up to heaven (Acts 1), after His nation had rejected Him and crucified Him. And on that same mountain His feet will stand when He returns to deliver them fully and completely in grace!

The sending for the colt shows the Lord as Jehovah, who has a perfect right to all. "The Lord has need of them." What could be more complete than His knowledge of circumstances hidden in the future? How clear His control over the owner's mind and feelings! He was meek, sitting on a donkey, the King of Zion the prophet spoke of. Yet He was as surely Jehovah as He was the Messiah coming in His name.

I suspect "the Lord" is here left purposely vague. The Lord had need of the donkey's colt, whether they took the title to mean Jehovah or the king who came in His name. If their faith did recognise the Messiah in Jehovah, that was entirely true, and so much the better for those who did.

Old and modern writers work hard to find in this remarkable incident a picture of the Gentiles obeying the gospel. That does not seem intelligent to me. It was simply the evidence of His divine knowledge. It was His claim, made among the Jews, to be Jehovah Messiah. Facts proved that claim, and so did the submission of human hearts, where God was pleased to produce it for the honour of His Son. That is why the Spirit records so exactly the words that passed and the fulfilment of all He said.

It was very simply the evidence of His divine knowledge, and the assertion among the Jews of His claim as Jehovah Messiah. Facts proved that claim, and so did the submission of human hearts, where God was pleased to produce it to the honour of His Son. That is why the Spirit notes in fine detail the words that passed and the carrying out of all He said.

This act of the Lord flashes out once more His glory, and shows that the King-Messiah is Jehovah. He knew that a donkey was tied there with a colt, just as He knew about the fish with the coin in the sea. He commanded that fish to come to Peter's hook. Here He demands the use of the donkey and colt. He has a right to them, for He is the Creator. He can say what He has said: "For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the hills, and all that moves in the field is mine" (Ps. 50:10, 11).

Only the Lord could give such instructions, for all things are His property. For anyone else to do this would be stealing. The owners questioned the disciples at first. But no difficulty arose: the words "the Lord has need of him" settled the matter even for them.

So He knew and directed a heart far away. He showed how David's Lord had a good claim to be David's Son — indeed to be received as such by the title of His own Person and glory. He who did these things by this divine power and ordering was claiming the place of David's Son, in grace and with no needless untruth. All was already subject to Him, whatever He might subject Himself to. This reached several hearts, whoever they were. It was not merely knowledge of the owner, but control of their hearts.

Another significant fact here is that it was the colt of a donkey. He rode a young animal, unbroken, as Luke 19:30 proves. Though no one had ridden it before, it was fully submissive to the Lord Jesus. Israel should have learned from this that they too should submit to the authority of the lowly Son of Man.

We learn that in the purest days of Jewish government the leading men in Israel used no animals but donkeys (Judges 5:10; 10:4; 12:14). Horses only came in during the corrupt times of Solomon. So when the Lord took up the style of "King of Israel," He of course took every feature, however small, that belonged to the only pure and true form of that character. That is why He orders His disciples to bring a donkey's colt to Him. Besides, this was the Messiah showing Himself as King, just as the prophet had presented Him beforehand (Zech. 9:9). His being "meek and lowly" was as kingly a feature as any other.

The colt was unbroken, for no one had sat on it, and so it was tied up under restraint. It was loosed from restraint, but only so that He might sit on it. Under His powerful hand it was perfectly restrained. This is a picture of how grace sets us free from the bondage of the law.

He demands the use of the donkey and its colt. He has a right to them, because He is the Creator, and He can say what He has already said: "For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the hills, and all that moves in the field is mine" (Psalm 50:10-11)... These men either owned the colt or had charge of it. No doubt the majestic "The Lord has need of them" made a deep impression on their hearts. So they were at once ready to let them go. His word demanded obedience, and they obeyed.

Luke is the only one of the four Gospel writers who certainly was not an eyewitness. From his account we gather that the owners of the animals allowed the disciples to take the foal. "The Lord has need of him" was enough. Surely they were disciples of the Master. Probably so was the owner of the upper room where they ate the last Passover. The owners acknowledged the Lord's claim at once, and the two disciples led off the foal without further discussion.

They were to say simply, "The Lord has need of it"... So He knew and ordered the heart at a distance. He showed how David's Lord had a good claim to be David's Son... He did these things by divine power, and so He was surely claiming the place of David's Son, in grace and with no needless untruth. Everything was already subject to Him, whatever He might subject Himself to. This power was over several hearts, whoever they were. It was not merely knowledge of the owner, but control of their hearts.

Coming as the King, He acts with kingly authority. Someone might ask why the disciples were untying the colt. The answer "that the Lord has need of him" would be enough, and straight away every question would cease. So it came to pass. And so it will be in the coming day of glory. Then it will be true of Zion: "Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power" (Psalm 110:3).

Sending for the colt shows the Lord as Jehovah, who has a perfect right to everything. "The Lord has need of them." What could be more complete than His knowledge of circumstances still hidden in the future? How clear His control over the owner's mind and feeling! He was meek, sitting on a donkey, the King of Zion that the prophet spoke of. Yet He was as surely Jehovah as He was Messiah coming in His name. The "need of them" is as amazing as the glory of His person.

Luke tells us that the colt was the one the Lord had need of. The Lord instructs the disciples to go and untie it, and more than that, to bring it to Jesus. That is a word that older believers and those who seek to serve the Lord should take to heart. Under the Lord's command, are we able to bring in a ministry that sets affections free for His service?... The Lord Himself has gone from the scene, but His name and His interests are here. We should want everything we do and say to free affections and attach them in loyalty to an absent Christ.

Ancient and modern writers have worked hard to find in this remarkable incident a picture of the Gentiles obeying the gospel, as the Lord received and rode on the colt. That effort seems to me far from intelligent. Instead, it was very simply the evidence of His divine knowledge. It was His claim among the Jews to be Jehovah Messiah. Facts verified that claim, and so did the proved submission of human hearts where God was pleased to produce it, to the honour of His Son. So the Spirit records every word that passed, and how everything He said came true.

The disciples had not prepared the colt, nor asked the Lord to mount it. The Lord took the initiative by sending two of His disciples to the entrance of Bethphage to get it. The foal was there, tied, as Mark tells us, at a door outside in the open street. He told them where to find it, what to do, and what to say to the owners. Zechariah had foretold that the foal would be available for the King's use. The Lord made known where it was actually standing at that moment. It was there ready to bring in the King, according to prophecy.

Only the Lord could give such instructions, for all things are His property; for anyone else to do this would be stealing. No difficulty arose, for the words, "the Lord has need of it" settled the matter even for the owners, who at first questioned the disciples.

Jesus still acts on His supreme and holy Lordship. He knows all things, directs all things, and has all things at His command — including the wills of men. For His people shall be willing in the day of His power. This was a brief demonstration of what He was and of His rights. "The Lord has need of it."

He rode a young animal, unbroken, as Luke 19:30 proves. Despite never having been ridden before, it was fully submissive to the Lord Jesus. Israel ought to have learned from this, that they too should submit to the authority of the lowly Son of Man.

When the Lord sent two disciples to bring the colt, they were to say certain things. When questioned they said exactly those words, adding nothing and taking nothing away, and they completed the service successfully.

Only the Lord could give such instructions, because all things are His property. For anyone else to do this would be stealing. No difficulty arose, because the words "the Lord has need of him" settled the matter even for the owners, who questioned the disciples at first.

He healed leprosy, the well-known special honour of God (2 Kings 5:7). He put away all sicknesses, as Jehovah-rophi, the ancient Healer of Israel (Ex. 15:26). He fed the crowds in the wilderness again. He stilled the waves, as though He could once more divide the Jordan and the Red Sea. He made the fish bring Him tribute money, just as here He claims the donkey — treating the earth and everything in it as His own.

The Lord had need of the donkey's colt, whether they applied the title to Jehovah or to the king who came in His name. If their faith truly recognised the Messiah in Jehovah, that was perfectly true, and so much the better for those who did. But I am not sure anyone can claim that the Spirit meant to imply that much.

So He knew and directed a heart far away, showing how David's Lord had a good claim to be David's Son... Everything was already subject to Him, whatever He might subject Himself to. This power reached several hearts, whoever they were, so it was not just knowledge of the owner, but control of their hearts.

From Luke's account we gather that it was the owners of the animals who allowed the disciples to take the foal. "The Lord has need of him" was enough. They were surely disciples of the Master, probably like the owner of the upper room where the last Passover was eaten.

The owners saw the disciples untying the colt and asked why. They answered as the Master had told them: "The Lord has need of him, and He will send him back here at once." That is how Mark seems to have written it (11:3), hinting that the Master needed it for a short time, and would give it back when He was done with it.

The colt was unbroken, for no one had ever sat on it, and so it was tied up and held in. It was set loose from that restraint, but only so that He could sit on it. Under His powerful hand it was held in completely. This is a picture of how grace sets us free from the bondage of the law.

We are so quick to think of things as ours. We should remember instead that all we have and all we are belongs to the Lord, and we should always give it up when He calls. This is not just a matter of rightful obedience; it is for our lasting good and happiness.

Only the Lord could give such instructions, for all things are His property; for another to do this would be stealing. There was no difficulty. The words, "the Lord has need of it," settled the matter even for the owners, who questioned the disciples at first.

The sending for the colt shows the Lord as Jehovah, who has a perfect right to all. "The Lord (Jehovah) has need of them." What could be more thorough than His knowledge of circumstances hidden in the future? How clear His control over the owner's mind and feeling! He was meek, sitting on a donkey, the King of Zion that the prophet spoke of. Yet He was as surely Jehovah as He was the Messiah coming in His name. The "need of them" is as amazing as the glory of His person.

He claims the donkey from its owner, because He could say of Himself, "The Lord has need of it." It is very striking that through His life and ministry, though He was the rejected man from Galilee the whole time, there was no form of the ancient glory that He did not take up. He made the fish bring Him tribute, and here He claims the donkey, treating the earth and everything in it as all His own.

He knew and directed a heart far away, showing that David's Lord had good claim to be David's Son. All was already subject to Him, whatever He might subject Himself to. This was over several hearts, whoever they were. So it was not only knowledge of the owner, but control of their hearts.

From Luke's account we gather that it was the owners of the animals who let the disciples take the foal. "The Lord has need of it," was enough. They were surely disciples of the Master, probably along with the owner of the upper room where the last Passover was eaten. The Lord's claim was accepted at once, and the two disciples led the foal away with no further discussion.

Zechariah had foretold that the foal would be there for the King's use. The Lord made known where it was standing at that moment. The owners saw the disciples untying the colt, and asked the reason. They answered as the Master had directed: "The Lord has need of it, and He will send it back here at once." So it seems Mark wrote (11:3). He means that the Master needed it for a short time, and would give it back when He had finished with it.

The colt was unbroken, for no man had sat on it, and so it was tied up under restraint. It was loosed from restraint, but only so that He might sit on it. Under His powerful hand it was perfectly controlled. This is a picture of how grace sets us free from the bondage of the law.

It was very simply the evidence of His divine knowledge. It was His claim, asserted among the Jews, to be Jehovah Messiah. Facts proved that claim, and so did the submission of human hearts, where God was pleased to produce it for the honour of His Son. That is why the Spirit records the words that passed, and the fulfilment of everything He said, so exactly.

Ancient and modern writers have worked hard to find in this remarkable incident a picture of the Gentiles obeying the gospel, since the Lord received and rode on the colt. That effort seems to me far from intelligent. It was very simply the evidence of His divine knowledge. It was His claim among the Jews to be Jehovah Messiah, asserted openly. Facts verified that claim, and so did the proved submission of human hearts, where God was pleased to produce it for the honour of His Son. That is why the Spirit records so carefully the words that passed and the fulfilment of all He said.

The Lord led His disciples up toward Jerusalem, and He sent for the donkey's colt on which He rode into the city, just as Zechariah had prophesied. The colt was unbroken, for no man had sat on it, and so it was tied up under restraint. It was loosed from that restraint, but only so that He might sit on it. Under His powerful hand it was perfectly controlled. This is a parable of how grace sets us free from the bondage of the law.

Only the Lord could give such instructions, for all things are His property. For anyone else to do this would be stealing. No difficulty came up. The words "The Lord has need of it" settled the matter even for the owners, who questioned the disciples at first.

"Casting (or, having cast) all your care — every anxiety — on Him." The word "casting" is a strong word. It really means "to fling," to part company with something completely. It is used that way in Luke 19:35, where the people cast their garments on the colt, letting them completely go!

The people put their clothing on the animal for the Lord to ride on. Others spread their garments on the ground in the way, for the donkey to walk on. This symbolized the submission of the people to this blessed though lowly Messiah of Israel. He did not ride on a war horse, as He will when He comes in judgment (Revelation 19:11). He rode a lowly donkey's colt, for He was presented in grace, offering peace if peace would be received.

The same divine power was controlling the hearts of the disciples and the multitude. That power gave this testimony to the royalty of Jesus, and it fulfilled the words of the prophet. They threw their cloaks on it, and He sat on it. A new position for the lowly Jesus — yet lovely even in this.

The colt here is seen alone, and not, as in Matthew, in company with its mother. It is grace entirely, not government. The King enters amid the applause of His people. When the Pharisees try to silence the disciples in their praise, He replies that the stones would cry out if the disciples kept quiet.

They spread the garments in the way. It was an Eastern custom to put costly rugs before the feet of kings, and the crowds followed this custom by putting their own garments down.

At the entry into Jerusalem, we see Him accepted in Israel, receiving such honours as Israel could give Him. The owner of the donkey acknowledges His higher claim as Lord. The crowd, it is true, cannot bathe His garments in glory, as heaven had done before. But they can spread their own garments under His feet, and surround Him with the joys of a feast of tabernacles. No glorified ones come out from their homes of glory to wait on Him and honour Him. But His citizens will hail Him as their King.

Writers ancient and modern have laboured to find in this remarkable incident a picture of the Gentiles obeying the gospel, as the Lord received and rode on the colt. That seems to me far from intelligent. It was simply the evidence of His divine knowledge, and the assertion among the Jews of His claim as Jehovah Messiah. Facts confirmed that claim, and so did the proven submission of human hearts, where God was pleased to produce it, to the honour of His Son. This is why the Spirit records in such detail the words that passed and the fulfilment of all He said.

The people put their clothing on the animal for the Lord to ride on. They spread other garments on the ground in the way for the donkey to walk on. This was a symbol of their submission to this blessed though lowly Messiah of Israel. He did not ride on a war horse, as He will when He comes in judgment (Rev. 19:11). He rode a lowly donkey's colt, for He was presented in grace, offering peace, if people would receive it.

The sovereign power of God moves a very great crowd to lay their garments on the road He travels. Others cut branches from the trees to spread in the way... The Jewish leaders had arranged nothing of the kind, though you would expect it at the arrival of their Messiah. Yet without any arrangement God worked in men's hearts. The result was a public presentation of the Messiah that the leaders could not ignore, however strongly they disapproved.

How happy for them if their hearts had been changed so as to hold on to this testimony in the Spirit. But God in His sovereignty arranged their hearts to give this testimony. He could not allow His Son to be rejected without receiving it.

Luke tells us that the colt was the one the Lord had need of. He instructs the disciples to go and loose it, and more than that, to bring it to Jesus. Those who are older, and those who seek to serve the Lord, should take that word to heart. Are we able, under the Lord's command, to bring in a ministry that results in affections being set free for His service?

The stream of men swept onward along the mountain track, the one route best suited to such a company. It led down the slope towards the city and the temple. The multitude seemed of one mind that day. The King was among them. The rightful occupant of David's throne was entering the capital of the kingdom. He came in the very way foretold centuries before. He was entering, too, the city from the east, from the very quarter from which some day He will return to it, to leave it no more. For His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives (Zech. 14:4), and the glory of the Lord will return to the house of God from the east (Ezek. 43:2).

Jesus had passed through Galilee and Samaria on His way up, and came near Jericho. There His mercy still flowed freely: He opened the eyes of the blind man, and He brought salvation to the house of Zacchaeus... As He continued going up to Jerusalem, the crowd of disciples looked ahead in their praises to the triumph of the coming day... If Solomon's ascent so astonished the queen of Sheba that she was left breathless, the ascent of the Son of God filled His disciples with praise to God.

This is not just the crowds, or those who went before Him and followed after, as in Matthew and Mark. Nor is it the children crying in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David," which Matthew records so fittingly. Luke tells us of the whole multitude of the disciples. So these are words that suit their lips alone. Yet God surely gave those words a wisdom far beyond the disciples' own measure, as often happens among the witnesses of Christ.

By all this He was clearly presenting Himself to Jerusalem as its rightful, God-sent King. His disciples helped in this, and as they came near the city they began to praise God and rejoice. John 12:16 tells us plainly that at the time they did not understand what they were doing. Yet the Spirit of God clearly took hold of their lips and guided their words.

So the Spirit of God gives them a step forward — a great step — in divine understanding. It reaches beyond the song of the angels at the beginning... Here we have a striking change, or rather the reverse. "Glory in the highest" is now the result, not the opening. And instead of "peace on earth," the disciples fittingly sing, "Peace in heaven." Peace on earth will no doubt be the fruit by and by, since it is according to God's mind and was looked for from the beginning. But peace on earth was not the question now. The reason was clear: the earth was not ready. It was about to judge unjustly, and to be judged.

The Son of David disappears. He is indeed the King who comes in the name of the Lord; but it is no longer the remnant of Israel seeking salvation in the name of the Son of David, acknowledging His title. It is "peace in heaven and glory in the highest." The kingdom rests on peace made in the heavenly places. The Son of man, exalted on high and victorious over Satan, has reconciled the heavens... The kingdom on earth is only a consequence of this glory which grace has established.

They hailed the Lord as King. It was a rehearsal, we may say, of the shout that will rise when Psalm 118:25-26 comes true. The "Save now" of the Psalm is the same as the "Hosanna" of the crowd... The crowd seemed of one mind that day. The King was among them. The rightful heir of David's throne was entering the capital of the kingdom. He came in the way foretold centuries before.

In Matthew it was, "Hosanna to the Son of David," and "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest." All of that was true. But here we have something more. The Son of David disappears. He is indeed the King who comes in the name of the Lord. But this is no longer the faithful few in Israel seeking salvation in the name of the Son of David, owning His title. It is "peace in heaven and glory in the highest." The kingdom depends on peace made in the heavenly places. The Son of man, raised on high and victorious over Satan, has reconciled the heavens... The kingdom on earth is only a consequence of this glory which grace has established... To establish the kingdom, peace is made in heaven, and the glory of God stands complete in the highest.

The angels greeted His entry into the world with praise: "Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace." But men rejected the One who alone could bring them peace. As He entered Jerusalem, shortly before the leaders of Israel rejected Him, the crowd of disciples rejoiced and praised God... Men had refused peace on earth, and now peace was about to spread her wings and fly to heaven.

Peace in heaven will be the ultimate and glorious effect of the work of Christ: Satan cast out of heaven, the heavenly inheritance redeemed (Ephesians 1:13), and the things in heaven reconciled (Colossians 1:20). All this and much more will surely come, when the King-Messiah comes again. Then there will be peace on earth, peace in heaven and glory in the highest.

They did not understand, yet they spoke out the mind of God, led by the Spirit. They knew the Scripture in Zechariah 9:9. But they did not foresee or expect this: at His first coming men would reject the King. Then, as the rejected King, He would go to the cross and there make a peace wholly connected with heaven. Yet was not this the truth? The kingdom was to be postponed, not lost.

Until you get peace in heaven, Christ cannot ride in. But when peace is in heaven, you cannot hinder it.

Our blessed Lord acted apart from man, and even despite man. He would not return to heaven without making a peace far higher than peace on earth among men. It was not a peace between man and man, but between God and man. He made it by the blood of His cross.

Earth refused Him, but heaven received Him very soon after His resurrection. Anyone today who wants true peace will find it only by looking to the Prince of Peace in heaven. The day will yet come when the Lord Jesus will establish peace on earth, but not until He returns.

It must have been a joyful scene, the kind that would stir even the most unemotional of men. Yet some stood right in the middle of the rejoicing crowd, untouched by it, though not unconcerned. These were Pharisees, who turned to the Lord and asked Him to rebuke His disciples. His reply silenced them. The Pharisees could only regard Him as a claimant to David's throne. One day all of nature will make itself heard, welcoming Him back as Lord and as Israel's King.

He presents Himself for the last time to Israel, in the lowliness of grace. That was far more important than the kingdom. This produces the sharpest possible contrast between the disciples and the Pharisees. The whole crowd of disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice. They said, "Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!" Some of the Pharisees appeal to Him to rebuke the disciples. From His lips they learn that if these were silent, the very stones would cry out. There must be a testimony to His glory.

The Pharisees dare to appeal to the Lord Himself to deny Himself and rebuke the disciples. He tells them that if they held their peace, the very stones would cry out. As a result of His rejection this has in fact happened, and the stones of the ploughed-up city bear witness for Him today.

If He had not been Israel's true King, they would have had reason to object. But the Lord silenced their objection. His words implied that the Spirit of God had moved the disciples to speak. If they would not speak, God would make even the stones cry out at once. If people will not give true honour to the Son of God, that will not stop God from using any means He pleases to glorify His Son.

But the hearts of the builders at Jerusalem were harder than the stones of their streets. They rejected the Stone which God had laid in Zion, for to them He was a Stone of stumbling. Christ's disciples were singing a sweet song of praise. Their hard, unfeeling voices cut across it with the harsh sound, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples." What blindness! What insolence against the "King of Zion"... The King's meek and lowly heart stayed in perfect harmony with the daughter of Zion. Even such a rude interruption could not disturb it.

When He was born as man, the angels had celebrated "on earth peace," for the Man of God's good pleasure had appeared. They celebrated the whole result of His work. But now it was clear that death lay before Him. His rejection would bring in a time of anything but peace on earth. Even so, the first effect of His work on the cross would be to establish peace in the highest court of all — in heaven. It would also display glory in the highest, as He Himself went up there in triumph. This note of praise had to be struck at this point. God could have made the stones cry out. Instead He used the lips of the disciples, though they spoke the words without fully understanding them.

But now the Pharisees say, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples." That was the heart of the nation exposing itself in the representatives of the people. The mind of the nation stood out in that saying, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples." That was rejection. "We will not have this man to reign over us."

This gives rise to the most marked contrast between the disciples and the Pharisees. Some of the Pharisees appeal to Him to rebuke the disciples, but learn from His lips that if these were silent, the very stones would cry out. There must be a testimony to His glory.

If He had not been Israel's true King, they would have had reason to object. But the Lord silenced their objections. He implied that the Spirit of God moved the disciples to speak, and that if they would not speak, God would make even the stones cry out at once. How true it is! If people will not give true honor to the Son of God, that will not stop God. He will use any means He pleases to glorify His Son.

But the hearts of the builders at Jerusalem were harder than the stones of their streets. They rejected the Stone which God had laid in Zion, for He was to them a Stone of stumbling. Christ's disciples were singing praise in sweet harmony. Their hard, unfeeling voices broke into it with the shrill cry, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples." What blindness!

Even stones may have a voice in the ear of the Lord. Habakkuk 2:11; Luke 19:40.

The Pharisees dare to appeal to the Lord Himself to deny Himself, and rebuke the disciples. He tells them that, if the disciples stayed silent, the very stones would cry out. As a result of His rejection this has indeed taken place, and the stones of the ruined city bear witness for Him today.

The Pharisees might regard Him as only a claimant to David's throne. In time to come all lifeless nature will make itself understood when it welcomes Him back as Jehovah and as Israel's King (Psalm 96; 98).

Now comes a striking contrast. As they approached the city the disciples rejoiced and shouted blessings on the King. The King Himself wept over the city! ... The lament of the LORD over Israel, recorded in Psalm 81:13, comes back here. It is far deeper now, as they approached the greatest of all their terrible sins. Jerusalem did not know the things that belonged to her peace, so peace on earth was impossible at that time... The sunrise from on high had visited them, and they did not know the time of their visitation.

And what kind of weeping was this? He wept at the grave of Lazarus and that was a still, a silent weeping. But before Jerusalem He broke out in loud and deep lamentations. The different words used in the original Greek clearly prove this.

"Wept" here means "sobbed" or "wailed" (eklausen). It is the word used of Peter in Mark 14:72. In John 11:35 we have a different word for the Lord, edakrue, "shed tears."

He who was the object of that popular ovation could not hold back His tears as He looked over Jerusalem. Sometimes people shed tears for joy; His were not that. Were they drawn out as He thought of how quickly popular praise changes, and of His coming sufferings? No. Those tears came from what was about to fall on the city because she rejected Him. Only Luke tells us about them.

The same crowd was now pressing around Him and joining in the "Hosanna" of His disciples. He knew that a few days later they would demand His death, shouting, "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" Did this hold back His tears? No, it only drew them out, because of the terrible judgment hanging over the unhappy blinded city.

Look at Christ on earth and you see the "Son of Man who is in heaven," displaying God on earth before our eyes. "In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily." See Him weeping over Jerusalem: the Messiah's heart wrung with grief over His people's sin. It was the tender heart of a man. But it sprang from that deep and wonderful fountain — "The tears fell from human eyes, but they came from the heart of God." So God was displayed. The heart adores when we think that we have to do with a God who has stooped down to human tears, in a world of tears.

If men will not receive the offers of grace, Christ grieves (Mark 3:5). He is like a judge who passes the sentence with tears in his eyes... "I come to save you, but you push salvation away from you. I come with healing under My wings, but you bolt the door on your physician. I only want you to open your hearts and receive Me. Then I will open heaven to receive you. But you would rather stay with your sins and die than come to Me and live." "Israel would not submit to me" (Ps. 81:11). Well, sinners, I will weep at your funerals.

Every word of the warning was exactly fulfilled in the siege of Titus. But what grace shone out of that heart, overflowing with grief for the people! They were blindly refusing the very One who wept over them, and it was to their own ruin. His love for them was at once truly divine and perfectly human.

The scene in Luke 19 gives us a striking picture of where Christendom stands morally in these closing hours of the day of grace... Opportunity had been given them of learning the things that belonged to their peace, but these were "now hidden from their eyes." ... And note, ignorance is the ground of its condemnation, which is a solemn warning to those who choose to remain ignorant now.

Now comes a striking contrast. As they approached the city the disciples rejoiced and shouted blessings on the King. The King Himself wept over the city! In John 11:35, the word used shows silent tears. Here the word used shows loud grief, both seen and heard. Jerusalem did not know the things that belonged to her peace, so peace on earth was impossible at that time. The Lord foresaw and predicted her violent destruction at the hands of the Romans, which came about forty years later.

But here we have another scene, His weeping over that very city that was about to cast Him out and crucify Him. It is a truth for us to treasure in our hearts. In divine grace He wept over guilty Jerusalem, which was giving up its own mercies and rejecting its own Saviour — the Lord God. He predicts that the city will be left desolate and destroyed, because it did not know the time when God came to visit it.

He wept, for Jerusalem was not prepared to receive Him: it was ignorant of the things that belonged to its peace. The same is true of the world today. Men wanted peace, but they were too blind to see what peace requires. Those requirements were centered in the person of the Lord Jesus, the Prince of peace. Unbelief hid them from Israel's eyes.

This was especially true of the city of Jerusalem. Its name means the city of peace, but how false to her name that city has been until now.

Oh, "Would that you, even you, had known" — all would have been pardoned then — "on this day" — what a day for Israel! Her sin had piled up, and grace piled up too, because of that very sin and because of the divine tenderness. But, alas, it only added to the sorrows of Jesus, if not of Jerusalem, His beloved. Now they were hidden from their eyes.

As long as He lived, that is, until the last entry into Jerusalem, the people could still repent. The words "But now they are hidden from your eyes" close it.

Every word of the warning came true exactly in the siege by Titus. But what grace shone out of that heart, so loaded with grief for the people! Blindly, and to their own ruin, they were refusing the very One who wept over them, in a love both truly divine and perfectly human.

This was the alternative, which His lament over the city brings fully out: it was the Saviour or the destroyer, Christ or the dreaded and hated Roman. In fact, they had already made their choice, and nothing remained but to leave them to it. But the Judge weeps as He gives sentence.

They had been given the chance to learn the things that belonged to their peace, but these were "now hidden from their eyes." Note that ignorance is the ground of its condemnation. That is a solemn warning to anyone who chooses to stay ignorant now. Many will even plead ignorance as a ground of forgiveness. But God takes pains to enlighten, so pleading ignorance is only proof of the most glaring stubbornness.

Every word of the warning was exactly fulfilled in the siege of Titus. But what grace shone out of that heart! He was overwhelmed with grief for a people who were blindly refusing, to their own ruin, the very One who wept over them. He wept in a love at once truly divine and perfectly human.

The Romans discussed three plans: to storm the city at once, to repair the works and rebuild the siege engines, or to blockade the city and starve it into surrender. They chose the last, and set the whole army to work "to cast a trench" around the city. But the siege was long and difficult. It lasted from the spring till September.

The words in Luke 19:44, "the time of your visitation," undoubtedly mean the day of grace for Jerusalem. That grace came through the presence and testimony of our blessed Lord. It was the opportunity for blessing, and this is why the Lord laments... When, however, we come to Peter's words, "the day of visitation," the thought is rather that of judgment, and not of grace.

Men wanted peace, but were so blinded that they did not recognise what peace required. These things centred in the person of the Lord Jesus, the Prince of peace. But because of unbelief the things necessary for peace were hidden from Israel's eyes (v.42). Prophetically the Lord pronounced on Jerusalem the terrible alternative to peace. Its enemies would make it their prey, and subject it to oppression, siege and destruction.

Those days did come. Yet I admit the Lord's prophecy was only partly fulfilled, and that it will have a fuller accomplishment later on. If you want to read a dark and bloody page of history, sit down and read the account of the sack of Jerusalem by the Romans under Titus. You will look on horrors that will strike to the very bottom of your soul. Only that time of terrible tribulation still to come will exceed them.

Jerusalem is only a sample of the world in general. Because Christ was rejected, the world will have to go through a very different history than if it had been prepared for Him... The world is not prepared for Him, and the earth must pass to its rest through the judgments that will cleanse it of its defilements.

They had had the opportunity of learning the things that belonged to their peace, but these were "now hidden from their eyes"... And note, ignorance is the ground of its condemnation. That is a solemn warning to those who remain willingly ignorant now.

In Luke 19:44, "The time of your visitation" certainly means the day of grace for Jerusalem. That grace came through the presence and testimony of our blessed Lord. It was the opportunity for blessing. This is why the Lord laments: "If you had known, even you, at least in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes." But when we come to Peter's words, "The day of visitation," the thought is judgment, not grace.

It is the hour of her visitation, and she has not known it. If only she had, even now, listened to the call of the testimony of her God! She is given up into the hands of the Gentiles, her enemies, who will not leave her one stone upon another. In other words, she did not know this visitation of God in grace in the Person of Jesus. So she is set aside. The testimony goes no further, and she gives place to a new order of things.

This was the alternative, which His lament over the city brings fully out: it was the Saviour or the destroyer, Christ or the dreaded and hated Roman. In fact, they had already made their choice, and could only be left to it. But the Judge weeps as He gives sentence. She and her children within her would be destroyed — not a stone left upon a stone.

Oh, "If you had known, at least," all would have been pardoned then — "in this your day" — what a day for Israel! For if all her sin was piled up, all grace was piled up too... but now they were hidden from their eyes. The joy and acclamation of His disciples was right, yet it gave occasion to the tears of Jesus rather than wiping them away. All as to Jerusalem hung on this: "You did not know the time of your visitation."

Every word of the warning came true to the letter in the siege of Titus. But what grace shone out of that heart, overwhelmed with grief for the people! They were blindly refusing, to their own ruin, the very One who wept over them in a love that was truly divine and perfectly human.

They had the opportunity to learn the things that belonged to their peace, but these were "now hidden from their eyes." So the Lord, still yearning over darkened Jerusalem, speaks ahead of time as Judge and pronounces her doom. And note, ignorance is the ground of its condemnation, which is a solemn warning to those who remain willingly ignorant now. There are many like this. They will even plead ignorance as the ground of forgiveness. But God takes pains to enlighten them, so such a plea is only evidence of the most glaring stubbornness.

It was said of Jerusalem that she did not know the time of her visitation (Luke 19:44). Her capture by the Romans, and the desolation that followed, are standing witnesses of her folly in that respect.

He now sees it as lost to Him, and soon to be laid level with the ground, because she had not known this, the time of her visitation!... The people would not see Him among them again, offering Himself to them as their King, until by repentance and faith they learn to join with His disciples in calling Him "Blessed."

Next we have, not the cursing of the fig tree, but the spirit of grace in the Lord's weeping over the city. God's purposes will surely be carried out, but we ought also to know His real tenderness in Jesus. Those tears were not in vain, whatever it looked like. It was the time of Jerusalem's visitation, but she did not know it… But what did He find in the people? See verses 45, 46. God declares His house to be one of prayer; men — the Jews — had made it a den of thieves. It was a terrible moral estimate, but this is the true way to judge: that is, having God's word, to take the facts as they are.

"The Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to His temple," Malachi (3:1) had written… It was His house, and He claimed the right to cleanse it. He quoted Isaiah 56:7, and for its condition He pointed to Jeremiah 7:11… He had cleansed it once before (John 2:14-16), at the start of His ministry. Now He did it again at the close. The first time He acted as Son. He declared that the house was His Father's: "Do not make My Father's house a house of trade." This time He cleansed it as Jehovah Himself: "My house," He said. He had entered Jerusalem as Messiah; He visited the temple as Jehovah.

The Word of God tells what His house is in His mind. It is a house of prayer, where man is in touch with a God of love — where he finds a home with Him, and a refuge in his need and distress. This may have been known only in part, but the Lord who knew the Father's heart knew it to be such. To Him it was a house of prayer. So it is to the spiritual mind — to the one who fears God and so knows the Lord's secret; God's house takes its character from Himself.

Jesus then enters the temple, ready to fulfil the promise the Lord made through Isaiah (Isaiah 56). That promise had a condition: the people were to keep equity and do justice. He would then have raised the house to a place of honour and glory, fit to be a house of prayer for all people. Instead He finds that they had made it a den of robbers, as the Lord had said through Jeremiah (Jeremiah 7:11). They had refused to change their ways and their doings… They had trusted in lying words while keeping up all the outward forms of religion. They came into the house of God as though it were their own place, and all the while filled their hearts with their covetousness.

Jerome saw in this act of our Lord the greatest miracle He ever worked. We need not agree with him. But there is profit in noticing this. Even at such a moment His energy was unstoppable. His angry rebuke of their irreverence threw that unworthy trade out of the holy courts. Yet He uses the written Word as His ground and warrant, as He always does.

Merchandise, however, had invaded its holy precincts then, and it does so even more widely now. They made it a den of thieves. The Lord "drove out those who sold in it and those who bought." One day He will "send His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father."

It was His house, and He claimed the right to cleanse it. He quoted Isaiah 56:7, and described its condition in the words of Jeremiah 7:11... The first time He cleansed it He acted as Son, and declared that the house was His Father's: "Do not make my Father's house a house of trade." Now He cleansed it as Jehovah Himself. He had entered Jerusalem as Messiah; He visited the temple as Jehovah.

The house was Jehovah's. The Lord did not come from Aaron's priestly family. By what right then did He take it on Himself to drive out the traders and overturn the money-changers' tables?... Who had ever acted as the Lord did? Who had ever applied the prophet's language to himself?

Jerome saw in our Lord's act the greatest miracle He ever worked. We need not agree with him. Still, it is worth noticing what He does at such a moment. Unstoppable power went with His angry rebuke of their irreverence, and threw that unworthy trading out of the sacred courts. Yet He uses, as always, the written Word as His ground and warrant.

The Word of God tells us what His house is in His mind. It is a house of prayer. There man is in fellowship with a God of love. There he finds a home with Him, and a refuge in his need and distress. People may have understood this only in part. But the Lord, who knew the Father's heart, knew the house to be such. To Him it was a house of prayer. So it is to the spiritual mind... God's house has its character from Himself.

He kept God's house holy. He kept it holy as Jehovah's house, not as a convenience for Jewish pride. And as Jehovah's house, His Father's house, it had all its wide claim and value in His eyes: a house of prayer for all nations. The holiness of God's house is what widens it. Holiness makes it truly God's house, His claim is over all, and it is a claim of grace.

The house of the Lord was meant to be a house of prayer for all nations. It was just a den of thieves. Any stranger who came up there looking for God was cheated when he bought the sacrifices he needed. So he would be driven away from the true God instead of drawn to Him. The men who held authority in the house were potential murderers, as verse 47 shows. So it had become a stronghold of murderers as well as a den of thieves. No wonder God swept it away by the Romans forty years later.

God approaches men through that House, and man can approach God there. Religious professionals had corrupted it into a means of feeding their greed. What the leaders in Israel did, leaders in the Christian assembly can do too, but for the grace of God... The same greed that corrupted the House of God at Jerusalem has pushed its way into the spiritual House of God, and it corrupts there too.

The Word of God from His lips especially reached men's consciences. The religious leaders, having long rejected Him, not only lost all right feeling but were given over to a murderous hatred that would soon be satisfied. This is always how the world proves itself when faced with the light of God; and the perfect love of God in Christ only provoked it the more.

Galilee, Samaria, Perea — people in each of these districts had known the Lord's presence and heard His voice. That was now over. The days when God visited them were past. A solemn thought. They would never again hear His preaching there — the voice of the One who spoke as no man ever spoke. Now for less than a week He would be teaching in Jerusalem and in the temple daily.

"He was teaching daily": He could not have spent the Wednesday alone, away from the crowds, as people often suppose. That would crowd everything in chapters 20 and 21 into the Tuesday. Compare 21:37 and the verses that follow. His teaching here would be in the Court of the Women.

What a scene! Outside the city, the heartbroken Saviour weeping over sinners. Inside, hardened sinners seeking to destroy the Saviour — seeking to shed the blood of the One who shed His tears over them.

Above all, the Word of God from His lips struck the consciences of men. The religious leaders had long rejected Him. So they not only lost all right feeling but were given up to a murderous hatred, soon to be satisfied. This is always what the world proves to be when the light of God confronts it. And the perfect love of God in Christ only provoked it the more.

"First" in Scripture often means the most important. Scripture applies it in this sense to men, Mark 6:21; Luke 19:47; Acts 13:50; Acts 28:7; to Philippi, Acts 16:12; to Paul as a sinner, 1 Timothy 1:15.

By this time the chief priests and scribes had fully decided to kill the Lord. They were looking for an opportunity. But He taught daily in the temple during these days before His arrest. They could do nothing until God allowed it. The Lord Jesus went on acting for God in the face of their resentment and hatred. The people listened closely to His words. Because of this the leaders were afraid to arrest Him, in case it stirred the people to riot. The fear of God meant little to them, but the fear of man and the pride of self-righteousness always go hand in hand.

He was in the temple day by day, teaching as no man ever taught, with the crowds hanging on His words. Those who did not look below the surface might say, as the priests themselves did, "The world goes after Him." But the more they feared, the more their anger against Him burned, and they sought His death.

Still, the heartless treatment He received drew no anger from Christ. No bitter or revengeful word fell from His lips. When He was reviled, He did not revile in return, and when He suffered He did not threaten. The hardness of our hearts only drew out a sorrow that showed itself in His tears... So we read that "the chief priests and the scribes and the leading men of the people were seeking to destroy Him." What a scene! Outside the city, the heartbroken Saviour wept over sinners. Inside, hardened sinners were seeking to destroy Him — seeking to shed the blood of the One who shed His tears over them.

The Word of God from His lips especially told on the consciences of men. The religious leaders had long rejected Him. They had lost all right feeling, and were given up to a murderous hatred that would soon have its way. This is what the world always proves to be when the light of God confronts it. And yet the perfect love of God in Christ only provoked it more.

By this time the chief priests and scribes had fully determined to kill the Lord, and they looked for an opportunity to do it. But He taught daily in the temple during these days before His arrest. They could do nothing until God allowed it. The Lord Jesus continued to act for God in the face of their resentment and hostility. The people were attentive to His words. So the leaders were afraid to arrest Him, in case it stirred the people to riot. The fear of God counted for little with them, but the fear of man and the pride of self-righteousness always go hand in hand.

Day by day He was in the temple, teaching as no man ever taught, with the crowds hanging on His lips. Anyone who looked only a little below the surface might say, as the priests themselves said, "The world goes after Him." But the more they feared, the more their anger burned against Him, and they sought His death.

Now He returned to the temple and taught the people. As Luke tells us, in keeping with his gospel, the Lord was that morning preaching the good news to the crowd... Luke often presents the Lord as preaching the gospel, and he clearly delights to do it. Remember, this is not the gospel of the grace of God that we know, but the gospel of the kingdom (8:1), the gospel for that day.

In Galilee, Samaria and Perea the people had known the Lord's presence and heard His voice. That was now over. The days of their visitation were past. A solemn thought. He spoke as no man ever spoke, and His voice would be heard in those places no more. Now for less than a week He would be teaching in Jerusalem and in the temple daily.

How could the people change so quickly from hearers to persecutors, crying out for His crucifixion? It may seem astonishing to us. But that is the sad fickleness of a crowd who only hear the Word of God and never do it. They were curious, but unsaved, without true knowledge of who the Lord really is.

Galilee, Samaria, Perea — in each of these districts people had known the Lord's presence and heard His voice. That was now over. The days of their visitation were past. A solemn thought. He spoke as no man ever spoke, and those places would hear His voice no more. Now for less than a week He would be teaching in Jerusalem and in the temple daily.

"One of the days." Mark shows that this was the Tuesday of Passion Week.

To "preach" (kerussein, to herald) means "a solemn announcement." When Luke speaks of the simple Gospel of Grace, he uses this word in particular: euangelizein. See Luke 4:18, Luke 7:22, Luke 9:6, Luke 20:1.

The Lord had now returned to the temple. The day before, as Mark notes, He had cleansed it. Now, revisiting it, He taught the people. As Luke tells us, in keeping with his gospel, the Lord was that morning announcing good news to the crowd... He never uses the word gospel in this earlier book of his. Yet he often shows the Lord preaching the gospel, and he plainly delights to do it. But remember: it was not the gospel of the grace of God that we know. It was the gospel of the kingdom, the good news for that day.

It is always likely to be so in an evil day. Worldly religion assumes that God approves of whatever already exists. It assumes the system will last and will win in the end. It was so in Israel, and it is so in the Christian world. Prophets like Jeremiah warned the religious leaders, who argued that God had guaranteed their temple and their whole system forever. Those warnings brought taunts and persecution from men who had the world's ear. They denied God's right to tell them the truth. And now someone greater than Jeremiah was here. Men who stood on their inherited office, men who claimed special knowledge of the Scriptures, men with leading influence over the people — they all demanded to know His right to act as He did, and where that right came from. They felt the solemn warning that ruin was coming on everything that gave them their importance. No wonder. But there was no faith in them, and no conscience toward God. So they turned away from any thought of their own ways and their own responsibility, and turned to the question of His title.

Jerusalem — that "favoured seat of God on earth, that heaven below the sky" — had defiled itself. The temple is unclean. The elders of the people do not believe. Hypocrisy and love of the world stain the priests, the scribes and the rulers. They challenge Jesus instead of receiving Him. They lay traps and snares for His feet, in the place where they should have prepared a crown for His head.

Christ chose the apostles at the start so that, once He had trained them, they would go out and preach. The Saviour Himself was their Example in this. To the very end of His ministry He continued to preach the Gospel.

Now we see the Lord meeting the different classes of officials and the religious and political bodies among the Jews. One group after another comes forward, hoping to puzzle Him and trap Him. In fact they only confuse themselves. They try to judge Him, and they expose themselves instead. The truth from His lips judges them, one by one, on their own evidence.

The house belonged to God. The Lord was not from Aaron's priestly line. By what right then did He take it on Himself to drive out the traders and overturn the money-changers' tables? What He had just done in that way, He had done in His own name. "My house" He called it. Who had ever acted as the Lord? Who had ever taken the prophet's words as his own?… Was He really using power in that house as one able in Himself to do it? Or was He claiming authority handed to Him by someone else when He made all the traders flee before Him?

And now someone greater than the prophet Jeremiah was here. The men who stood on an office handed down to them demanded to know His right to act as He did, and where that right came from. So did the men who claimed special knowledge of the Scriptures, and the men with the leading influence over the plans and the conduct of the people. No wonder they felt His solemn witness that ruin was coming on everything that gave them their importance. But there was no faith in them, no conscience toward God. So they turned away from thinking about their own ways and their own responsibility, and turned to the question of His title.

God comes into the world to do good, and man demands His authority! Before this, Jesus had been showing power in healing the blind and the lame, and in cleansing the temple. Now He is quietly teaching there. And this trapping question comes from men who find their cover of hypocrisy pulled aside, their authority in danger, and their dishonest gains disturbed.

Their question assumed that they could judge the Lord's credentials, if He produced them. So He called on them to settle a first question: the credentials of John, the man sent ahead of Him. This put them in a corner at once, for the people would have resented the answer they wanted to give. They bent with the crowd, chasing popularity, so they pleaded ignorance. To such men the Lord did not produce His authority. Instead He went on to speak with all the authority that comes from knowing everything, and they very soon felt its power. By the time the war of words ended, there could be no doubt about His authority.

This is the usual question from a church authority that has really turned away from God. What is of God recognises God's work: God's work proves itself… But it is well to remember that God's work does not need a permit. Who would give it one? God needs nobody at all to work, or to make others work. The man who pleads church authority for his work proves that it is not God who is working — for who can authorise Him?

Now He returned to the temple and taught the people. As Luke tells us, in keeping with his Gospel, the Lord was that morning preaching the good news to the crowd... He was busy in that happy service when the interruptions came. The chief priests, the scribes, and the elders came to Him — a formidable and probably large group. They had recovered, we may suppose, from their surprise of the previous day. But no doubt they were still stinging from the rebuke, as they must have felt it was. So they demanded His authority for what He had done inside the sacred building.

The wisdom of the Lord's way of proceeding deserves full attention. He alone could have taken His stand on personal dignity, on the closest relationship, and on the highest mission. He pleads none of these things. He probes their consciences. They want to avoid the cost of answering truthfully, so they have to confess their own incapacity. They cannot guide others. They cannot even act rightly themselves in a matter of the deepest and widest concern to all Israel of that day.

God comes into the world to do good, and man asks by what authority God does good in the world!... The Lord appeals to no miracle — He has done plenty, but He does not appeal to miracles... In reply He puts a question to them in divine wisdom, and at once it brings out the real state of their conscience.

Jesus promises to speak about His authority, if they will answer His question about John's baptism... Who were they, then, to question the authority of Jesus? If all they could say was "We do not know," they confessed their own incompetence. Those who could not settle the question of the servant were surely not qualified to judge the Master.

They had sent a special mission to John the Baptist to look into his claim. And everyone knew that John himself had acknowledged the Lord. They "sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth." So what about "the baptism of John"? Was it "from heaven or from man"? Either they had already decided about John's authority, or else they were not competent to judge the Lord. Their verdict on the one would have to cover both. Either way, they had the means of answering their own question.

He did this, not so much to put their safety with the crowd at risk, as their evil hearts suggested, but to lead them, in God's own appointed way, to the answer of their own question. They should have felt no hesitation in deciding that John's baptism was "from heaven." That would have shown at once by what authority He was acting. For John's ministry was God's testimony to Him, the Christ.

Our Lord answers by asking them what they thought of John's baptism. He appeals neither to miracles nor prophecy, but to conscience. The ancient prophecies had been fulfilled so plainly in His person, in His life and in His ministry! The signs and wonders He worked gave such full testimony! Yet their question proved how empty it had all been. And His question proved either their dishonesty or their blindness. In either case, who were they to judge? … How we judge, or refuse to judge, what concerns Christ is an unfailing gauge of our own condition.

They had sent a special mission to the Baptist to investigate his claim, and everyone knew that the Baptist had recognised the Lord. They "sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth." So what about the baptism of John — was it from heaven or from man? Either they had already settled the question of John's authority, or else they were not competent to give a verdict about the Lord. Their verdict on the one would have to include both. Either way, they had the means of answering their own question.

They could not deny the moral power of John, yet they refused to profit by it. John bore witness to Jesus as the Messiah, and to Israel's need of repentance. So to acknowledge John's baptism as from heaven was a most serious matter for these men. It was something new, with not the least appearance of traditional holiness, no claim to age, and no connection with the priesthood or the temple. These were men who drew all their standing from the regular course of the law and its ordinances. Besides, it settled the question of the Messiah at once.

On that point there was no doubt in anybody's mind. But answering it truthfully would have convicted them of disobedience. Saying that it was from man would expose them to the fury of the crowd. They talked over what to answer, for they saw the trap they were in, and they deliberately agreed on what they knew was a lie. … Their questions assumed they were competent to sit in judgment on His claims. … So He would not treat them as honest men.

Who were they, then, to question the authority of Jesus? If all they could say was "We do not know," they had confessed their own incompetence. Those who could not solve the question of the servant were surely not qualified to judge the Master.

A similar question is before people's minds today. It is not now about John, but about the Bible. A book is in our hands, with the highest claim to a divine mission. So the challenge comes to us: is it from heaven, or from man? If it is from heaven, the next question follows: "Why then do you not believe it?" But if the Bible is from man, let us put it in the museum as a curious relic of an ignorant past.

"From heaven or from man?" This was the question about John. It is also the question about the Lord Himself. In our day we may go further and say it is the question about the Bible. John was only a man, yet his ministry was from heaven. The Lord Jesus was truly born of the virgin, yet He was from heaven, and so was His matchless ministry.

On that point there was no doubt in anybody's mind. But a truthful answer would have convicted them of disobedience. On the other hand, to say that it was of men would expose them to the vengeance of the crowd. They talked over what to answer, for they saw the trap they were in. Then they chose to agree on what they knew was a lie.

They could not deny John's moral power, yet they refused to profit by it. John bore witness to Jesus as the Messiah, and to Israel's need of repentance. So to own John's baptism as being from Heaven was of the most serious consequence for them. It was a new thing. It had not the least appearance of traditional holiness, no claim to age, no link with the priesthood or the temple. And these were men who drew all their importance from the regular course of the law and its ordinances.

They had sent an official delegation to John the Baptist to look into his claim. And everyone knew that John himself had recognised the Lord. They "sent to John, and he bore witness to the truth." So what about "the baptism of John? Was it from heaven or from men?" Either they had already decided about John's authority, or they were not competent to judge the Lord. Their verdict on the one would have to cover both. In any case, they had the means of answering their own question.

It was an appeal to conscience. But they had no conscience, except a bad one. It shrank into silence at once — afraid to commit itself, yet not afraid to make light of God and man... Who were they, then, to question the authority of Jesus? If they could only say "We do not know," they confessed their own incompetence. Those who could not settle the question of the servant were surely not qualified to judge the Master.

The Lord's answer came to this. Let them prove their competence by settling the far smaller question of John's authority, and He would then submit His authority to their examination. This at once plunged them into difficulty. If they endorsed John's baptism as coming from heaven, they condemned themselves, because they had not believed him... They would not say John's baptism was valid. They dared not say it was invalid. So they took the ground of ignorance and said, "We cannot tell." In this way they destroyed their own competence to judge. They also lost any ground for protest when Jesus refused to reveal His authority.

Right at the start, He puts this great truth before everyone: man's conscience is bad, because it does not submit to the righteousness of God. And that is always the case. Man cannot deny that things come from heaven, but he will not believe. If pressed to the limit — look at the extreme case of unbelief — men love darkness rather than light.

The Lord knew well His questioners and their motives. He replied therefore by asking them about John's baptism: was that from heaven, or from men? On that point there was no doubt in anybody's mind. But an honest answer would have convicted them of disobedience. On the other hand, to say it was of men would expose them to the fury of the crowd. They talked over what to answer, for they saw the dilemma they were in. Then they deliberately agreed on what they knew was a lie.

Those who have lost the fear of God are just those who will be most completely dominated by the fear of man.

A great question was troubling people's minds in Israel when the Son of God came to earth. John the Baptist was in the land, thundering at the consciences of all, and claiming to have a divine mission. Most of the people regarded him as a true prophet, and many bowed humbly at his words. But their leaders treated him very differently. They did not openly reject him or say he was not from God. Yet they were not at all willing to acknowledge him. So the Saviour's challenge to Israel's spiritual guides went straight to the point: was the baptism of John from heaven, or from man? Their reply exposed both their wickedness and their incompetence.

He probes their consciences. They want to escape the consequences of a truthful answer, so they end up confessing their own incapacity. They cannot guide others. They cannot even act rightly themselves in a matter of the deepest and widest concern to all Israel of that day… They could not deny the moral power of John, yet they refused to profit by it. He had borne witness to Jesus as Messiah and to Israel's need of repentance. John's baptism was a new thing. It carried no trace of traditional sanctity, no claim of age, no link with the priesthood or the temple. To own it as from heaven was extremely serious for men who drew all their importance from the regular course of the law and its ordinances. To disown John and his baptism would have ruined their standing, because all the people were convinced that John was a prophet. To them it was only a question of policy, so they dodged the answer behind a lie. They could not afford to be truthful.

So, right at the start, the Lord puts this great truth before everyone. The conscience of man is bad, because it will not submit to the righteousness of God. And that is always the case. Man cannot deny that things come from heaven; but he will not believe. He may bring out his hard questions, like those of old, but with no real desire for the truth. What his conscience cannot deny, he will neither admit nor act upon.

The question in itself was not an unreasonable one. But who asked it, and why? The Lord knew His questioners well, and their motives. So He replied by asking them about John's baptism: was it from heaven, or from men? On that point nobody had any doubt. But an honest answer would have convicted them of disobedience. On the other hand, to say it was of men would expose them to the fury of the crowd. They talked over what to answer, for they saw the trap they were in. They deliberately agreed on what they knew was a lie. "We do not know," they said.

But they cannot answer it. If they said John's mission was from heaven, they had to believe the testimony he gave. If they said it was from men, they would stand in direct opposition to the people. They had no martyr's spirit, no willingness to suffer for their convictions. It was easier to claim ignorance, for all the humiliation that involved.

Our Lord answers by asking what they thought of John's baptism. He appeals neither to miracles nor prophecy, but to conscience. How clearly He had fulfilled the ancient prophecies in His person, in His life and in His ministry! How full the testimony of the signs and wonders He worked! Yet their question proved how useless it all had been. His question proved either their dishonesty or their blindness. In either case, who were they to judge? Little did they think that while they tried to examine the Lord of glory, they were really showing their own distance and alienation from God. So it always is. Our judgment of what concerns Christ, or our refusal to judge it, is an unfailing gauge of our own condition.

It was an appeal to conscience. But they had no conscience, except a bad one. It drew back at once, afraid to commit itself, but not afraid to trifle with God and man… So they preferred to shelter behind an ignorance that looked prudent. Who were they, then, to question the authority of Jesus? If all they could say was "We do not know," they had confessed their own incompetence. Those who could not settle the question of the servant were surely not qualified to judge the Master.

The chief priests demanded that He produce His authority. In doing so, they assumed they were competent to assess its value once produced. The Lord's answer was in effect this: let them prove their competence by ruling on the far smaller question of John's authority, and He would then submit His authority to their examination… They would not say John's baptism was valid, and they dared not say it was invalid. So they took the ground of ignorance, saying, "We do not know." In this way they destroyed their own competence to judge. They lost any ground for protest when Jesus refused to reveal His authority.

They choose to be blind about John's mission, so He leaves them in the ignorance they chose about His authority. But He lays bare the state of their hearts. He convicts them of hypocrisy in the parable of the man who told his two sons to go and work in his vineyard.

Worldly religion assumes that God approves what already exists, that it will last, and that it will win in the end. It was so in Israel, and it is so in Christendom... And now One greater than Jeremiah was here. Those who stood on their inherited office, those who claimed special knowledge of the Scriptures, and those with leading influence over the people all demanded to know His right to act as He did, and where it came from. No wonder they felt the solemn testimony of coming ruin to everything that gave them their importance. But there was no faith in them, no conscience toward God. So they stopped thinking about their own ways and their own responsibility, and turned to the question of His title.

The wisdom of the Lord's method deserves close attention. He alone could have taken His stand on personal dignity, on the closest relationship, and on the highest mission — and He pleads none of these. He probes their consciences. They want to escape the consequences of answering truly, so they must confess their own incapacity. They cannot guide others, and they cannot even act rightly themselves, in a matter of the deepest and most general concern to all Israel of that day... It was useless to inform unbelief.

On that point there was no doubt in anybody's mind. But a truthful answer would have convicted them of disobedience. On the other hand, to say it was of men would expose them to the fury of the crowd. They talked over what to answer, for they saw the dilemma they were in. Then they deliberately agreed on what they knew was a lie. They said they could not tell... Reality was far from them. So He would not treat them as sincere people. He declined, and rightly, to answer what they asked.

Who were they, then, to question the authority of Jesus? If all they could say was "We do not know," they had confessed their own incompetence. Those who could not settle the question of the servant were surely not qualified to judge the Master. In truth, their incapacity was the lesser fault. Their hypocritical wickedness was the greater, and the will was more at fault than the understanding.

They dodged the question deceitfully by claiming they did not know (v.7). He then answered them flatly that neither would He tell them by what authority He acted. For His authority certainly had the same source as John's: it was from heaven. If they would not honestly admit the one, then clearly they had no intention of admitting the other.

When people resist, the result is blindness. The more light they refuse, the greater that blindness grows. Anyone who receives the first testimony always receives more... Those who bowed to the witness of John the Baptist received Jesus as well. Those who rejected it rejected the Messiah too. John's testimony was taken away, and the people were left blind.

Now the Lord begins in His turn to show all the classes of the Jews the state they were in, beginning with the people as a whole. Israel had been Jehovah's vineyard. He had let it out to certain tenants to receive its fruit in due season. He had done all He could for His vineyard; it was impossible to do more than He had done. Israel enjoyed all the privileges which a nation could enjoy.

The vineyard is Israel. God allowed the vinedressers (the religious leaders) authority over it, while He withdrew from the scene for the time of their testing under law. Yet from time to time He sent servants (the prophets). They came to remind Israel of their true Master and to call for proper recognition of His rights.

In the East people pay rent partly in kind, not all in money. But God looked in vain for any return from Israel. Eight centuries before Christ came, He complained: "What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it? When I looked for it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?" For all the favours God blessed them with, Israel gave back nothing but the lowest ingratitude and sin. They handed out violence and murder to His messengers: they "beat one, killed another, and stoned another." Stephen challenged them just as sharply: "Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?"

God had been patient for a long time. He was seeking the fruit that was due to Him. Yet people had dishonoured His messengers, His servants, mistreated them, and even killed them. There was one thing more that God could do, and He did it; He sent His Son.

Now they had to hear the Lord speak a parable to the people. It showed His perfect knowledge of their real intentions, and of the death that awaited Him at their hands. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all relate this, but with variations, as is usual. The subject is the ways of the teachers in Israel: what they had done in the past, what they would soon do, and the punishment they would bring on themselves as a result.

As you compare them, you may notice that Matthew and Mark give fuller detail than Luke about God's dealings with Israel. Mark and Luke speak only of giving the vineyard to others. Matthew speaks of letting it out to other tenants who will give him the fruit in their seasons. So Matthew keeps responsibility most in view, and Luke grace. Both are true, and both matter greatly.

Israel had been Jehovah's vineyard; He had rented it out to tenants so that He would receive its fruit in due season. He had done all He could for His vineyard; it was impossible to do more than He had done. Israel enjoyed all the privileges which a nation could enjoy. At fruit-time, the Master sends His servant to receive the fruit of the tenants.

The vineyard is Israel. God allowed the vinedressers (the religious leaders) authority over it, while He stepped back from the scene during the time of their testing under law. Yet from time to time He sent servants (the prophets) to remind Israel of their true Master and to call for proper recognition of His rights. Notice the patient grace of the Master of the vineyard. One or two servants had been cruelly mistreated and sent away empty. It would be natural for the full force of His displeasure to fall in swift judgment on the keepers of the vineyard. But even after they mistreated a third servant, He took no punishing action.

There was no fruit to God — nothing but evil. There was insult to Himself and injury to His servants. One sin leads to a greater sin where it is not judged. They are sliding fast down the slope to destruction.

It reads like a continuation of the historical statements made in 2 Chronicles 36:15-16. There God appealed through His messengers, sending them again and again. But all were mocked and misused until "there was no remedy," and He brought the king of the Chaldeans upon them. Here the story goes a step further: He sends the "Beloved Son," only for them to cast Him out and kill Him.

There is such a thing as God's looking for fruit from that which He has planted and nurtured in the world, but there is no fruit to be had from man towards God. The tenants' will was entirely against it. They did not recognise the authority of God in His vineyard: they liked to have it for themselves. The rules God had given only brought out the enmity and hatred of those He had entrusted with His vineyard.

God looks to see whether the vineyard bears the fruit that a vineyard cared for like this ought to bear. It is a general principle that applies to the Jews, to the church, and to each individual. If the church has received more than the Jews, God is entitled to expect that it produce more.

The teachers are pictured as tenant farmers, trusted by the owner with the care of his vineyard. The subject is the ways of the teachers in Israel: what they had done in the past, what they would soon do, and the punishment they would bring on themselves as a result.

There was no fruit for God — nothing but evil. There was insult to Himself and injury to His servants. "And again he sent to them another servant; and at him they threw stones, and struck him on the head, and sent him away." They sent him away not only empty, but with insult. One sin leads to a greater sin where it is not judged.

Prophet after prophet God had sent to get the fruit from the tenants. But they had mocked them, despised their words, and mistreated them (2 Chron. 36:16), and killed some of them. Now the Son had come. Did they ask who He was? The Lord in this parable made clear who He was, and that they really knew it. They were not in ignorance about Him.

Notice the patient grace of the Master of the vineyard. The tenants badly mistreated one or two servants and sent them away empty. It would be natural for the full force of His displeasure to fall in quick judgment on the keepers of the vineyard. But even after they treated a third badly, He took no punishing action. Instead, the Lord of the vineyard decided to send His beloved Son, who was worthy beyond question of the deep respect of the tenants.

Now Jehovah had long patience. He sent prophets till there was no remedy. He struck them and cut them short. He let them go captive, then restored them again. So the land was filled and the temple built. Still the word ran on, though the prophets did not live for ever. Jehovah had long patience, till having yet one Son, He said, "it may be they will respect my Son."

It is simply (Luke 20:16) that the vineyard is given to others. They fell on the stone of stumbling then; when it falls on them — when Jesus comes in judgment — it will grind them to powder.

The vineyard is Israel. God had allowed the tenants (the religious leaders) authority over it, while He withdrew from the scene for the time of their testing under law. Yet from time to time He sent servants (the prophets) to remind Israel of their true Master, and to call for proper recognition of His rights. Notice the patient grace of the Master of the vineyard. They mistreated one or two servants and sent them away empty. The full force of His displeasure could naturally have brought quick judgment on the keepers of the vineyard. But even after they mistreated a third servant, He took no punishing action.

The application was obvious. Prophet after prophet God had sent to get the fruit from the tenants. But they had mocked them, despised their words, and mistreated them (2 Chron. 36:16), and killed some of them. Now the Son had come.

There was no fruit for God — nothing but evil. There was insult to Himself and injury to His servants. One sin leads to a greater sin where it is not judged. They are rapidly sliding down the slope to destruction.

The tenants of the parable plainly stand for the responsible leaders of Israel. They repeated their failure to produce any fruit for the owner, and then crowned their wickedness by killing the Son. They wanted the whole inheritance for themselves. So the Lord summed up the charge against Israel under three headings. There was no fruit for God. There was the ill-treatment of His servants the prophets. And there was the rejection and murder of the Son.

God keeps seeking fruit from the nation. Every approach He makes is not only pushed away, but met with growing resentment. The first servant is sent away empty. The second is treated with insult. Others are sent, and meet not only insult but persecution, even to death. More and more, the nation shows the failure of man under responsibility. But there is one last test, to see whether it is possible to move the heart of man. There is one Son — the well-beloved Son. He shall be sent. If there is a spark of goodness in the tenants, they will surely respect the Son. Even the best of prophets and kings may give some cause for dislike, or even hatred. In the Son there can be no cause of hatred.

The more patient and long-suffering God has been toward men, the more dreadful and decisive His judgment will be when it falls. In fact the destruction of those tenants came when Jerusalem fell in AD 70. That fall stripped Israel's leaders of all authority and destroyed them.

If they killed Him, God's patience with them would end. Judgment must overtake them, and others would work the vineyard. The book of Acts shows how this came about. After the Lord's death, the work of the apostles produced fruit in Israel, and the chief priests and scribes were set aside completely.

All efforts to get the fruit from them having failed, one resource remained for the owner — to send his son. So, taking counsel with himself, as the parable pictures it — and only Luke records this — he says, "What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; perhaps they will respect him." If anything could have changed how the tenants felt towards the owner, it would surely have been the sending of his son.

What affecting patience! God is, as it were, at a loss how to act, and how to reach the conscience and heart of those He had so favoured. By one immense act He tries whether anything can bring them back to a sense of their position. But it only brought out the evil. "My beloved Son" — the Lord presents what was in God's mind... He will venture all on the hope of reclaiming them, for He loved His people!... He lays the ground of responsibility by acting in love, and He does it through the One who has the highest claim on our obedience, submission, affection and respect. He sends His Son in that character, His heart going out as He does it.

Our Lord in this parable makes one point clear: the Son was already the Son before God sent Him: "Then the owner of the vineyard said, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son." The words show that the Owner looked ahead and planned to send One whom He could describe, even before sending Him, as "My beloved Son." So God's beloved Son was the One appointed to take up the work of mediator as soon as "the fullness of time had come" (Gal. 4:4). He was first the Son, then the Servant.

Here God's love to the world stands revealed. Its expression, and its measure — so far as it can be measured — is now declared: "He gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"... God giving His Son to die for guilty creatures of Adam's race! That was love indeed!... Witness the parable of the tenants. See in it the owner taking counsel with himself, how as a last resort he should try to gain the confidence of the rebellious tenants (Luke 20:13)... Now since that gift came from the activity of Divine love, it was grace that was working — grace to which man could lay no claim.

If people had received Christ, the result would have proved that evil could be repaired. Now we know that the truth is quite otherwise. But God first put the matter to man's responsibility. Only afterwards did He show that this was morally impossible. Though He called to it, He was calling them according to the knowledge He had Himself of what He was going to do. "What shall I do? I will send my beloved Son. Perhaps they will respect him, when they see him." That is what God set before man. The object of faith is the person of Christ.

Love is an element revealed in this parable, as well as the Son's rightful authority. The father sent his "beloved" son. But the father's love for that son had no softening effect on the tenants. They did know who the son was. "This is the heir," they said. Then, thinking about the inheritance, they plotted to kill him for that very reason.

The wide difference between the servants and the son lay not in the office but in the person of the son. Both were sent as delegates, but the one sent "last of all" was the son, his "one son, his well-beloved" (Mark). The son was one whom the tenants were to "reverence," a respect not owed to servants. Because of his dignity as the only son, he had an unequalled personal standing. He was the "heir," as the tenants recognised, and they put him to death on that very account.

Love is an element revealed in this parable, as well as the Son's rightful authority. The father sent his "beloved" son. But the father's love for that son had no softening effect on the tenants. They did, however, recognise who the son was. They said, "This is the heir." Reasoning about the heirship, they conspired to kill him for that reason. If they thought at all that he was the father's "well-beloved," that thought only inflamed their anger against him.

The wicked tenants saw the heir of the vineyard. They "reasoned" among themselves, saying, "This is the heir. Let us kill him, so that the inheritance may be ours" (Luke 20:14). Caiaphas advised the council to "consider" how much better it would be that one man should die for the people (John 11:50).

Only one motive was left that could move the heart of man. Would not One be acceptable who was infinitely greater in dignity and without any fault? For even prophets had faults. God's power was in them and through them, yet they had weaknesses like other men. But the Son was perfection: what if He were to come? Surely they must feel that the Son of God had a far higher claim on their affections and their reverence. And so it would have been had not man been utterly lost.

The "tenants" of the parable clearly stand for the responsible leaders of Israel. They not only repeated their failure to produce any fruit for the owner; they crowned their wickedness by killing the Son. They wanted the whole inheritance for themselves. So the Lord summed up the charge against Israel under these three heads: no fruit for God; ill-treatment of His servants the prophets; the rejection and murder of the Son.

The coming of the Son made clear the real state of the heart of man. Israel would gladly have a kingdom without Christ, and the Gentiles would have a world without God. It is just as the tenants in the parable say: "This is the heir. Let us kill Him, so that the inheritance may be ours." And as it was with the leaders of Israel in the day of the Lord, so it is with the whole world today. It is increasingly clear that man's will is to shut God out of His own world.

If any of you should be seeking pleasure in the world, you know you do not want to find God there; for if you did, it would upset it all. So in spirit you are saying, "Let us kill the heir, and the inheritance shall be ours." You may not have lifted your hand to kill God's Son, but you have kept Him out of your heart.

They rejected His claim on the inheritance, cast Him out of the vineyard (Israel) and killed Him. That is the point at which the Letter to the Hebrews begins. Could this rejection of the rightful heir overturn God's purpose? Of course not. "God … has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things" (Hebrews 1:2). The matter is fixed and cannot be broken. The inheritance is Christ's, and no one will ever take it from Him.

How blinding is the greed of man's heart! How can he hope to escape the just punishment of the Lord of the vineyard? The longer God has been patient with people, the more dreadful and decisive His judgment will be when it finally falls. In fact, those tenants were destroyed when Jerusalem fell in AD 70. Israel's leaders were stripped of all authority and destroyed.

They felt the force of this, and, almost without meaning to, cried out, "God forbid." Such thoughts were far from them. Poor people! However tangled up in the ruin and the sin, they were far from wanting the results. No! Israel was not to suffer like this and be set aside. Their heart could not expect any such thing. It clung to the name of their glory with fond but untrue attachments. "The vineyard given to others" struck hard on the heart of a Jew. The Lord felt this. He entered into this awakened feeling, this involuntary "God forbid." In a sense His heart echoed it, and He fixed His gaze on them. They had not denied that the judgment was just. But its nature, once put before them, produced the shock that burst out in their cry.

But in that case God's patience with them would end. Judgment must overtake them, and others would farm the vineyard. Acts shows how this came to pass. After the Lord's death, fruit in Israel came through the work of the apostles. For that work the chief priests and scribes were set aside completely.

In another image, Jehovah let out a vineyard to Israel and prepared it to bear fruit. But when He sent for the fruit, His servants were mistreated and killed. Last of all He sent His Son, and they killed Him too. God has destroyed those tenants and has let out His vineyard to the Gentiles: Matthew 21:33-41; compare Romans 11:21.

Notice that Mark and Luke speak simply of giving the vineyard to others. Matthew speaks of letting it out to other tenants who will give him the fruit at the right seasons. So Matthew keeps responsibility most in view, and Luke grace. Both are true, and both matter greatly. Again, in Matthew it is "he that falls," in Luke "everyone," and so on. There is breadth in judgment as in grace.

The destroying of the vinedressers and the giving of the vineyard to others seemed to some to be too hard. They said, "God forbid." But is justice never to be done? He looked them in the eyes and quoted from Psalm 118:22. He asked them what God meant by declaring that the stone the builders rejected is to become the cornerstone. ... This same One they rejected will yet take supreme authority, yet they were plotting His death.

Destroying the vineyard workers and giving the vineyard to others seemed too hard to some. They said, "God forbid." But is justice never to be done? He looked them in the eyes and quoted Psalm 118:22. He asked them what God meant by saying that the stone the builders rejected is to become the head of the corner. Israel's true Shepherd, the Messiah, is the stone that is meant. Psalm 118 says He would be rejected, yet would become the head of the corner. How could the chief priests and scribes evade the force of such words? This same One they rejected will yet take supreme authority, yet they were plotting His death.

He was the stone which they, the builders, were rejecting. He in no way fitted into the building which they designed and they refused Him. A day is coming when God will bring Him out to be the foundation and to set the lines of the building God has in view. That great event will also destroy wicked men and their false building.

The architect cuts this stone in advance. It is the last stone dropped into place, and it bonds the building together. It is also a test: whether it fits or not shows if the architect's plans were truly followed.

The rejected stone had become the corner stone. They had handed Him over and thrown Him out. God gave Him the prominent place of the corner stone. Everything rests on Him as the foundation stone, and He unites the building.

His resurrection was the great theme of Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost. Three thousand men could not resist the conviction that God had stepped into the great dispute between the leaders of Israel and Jesus — between the builders and the Stone they rejected. Heaven's final court of appeal decided in favour of Jesus. He was vindicated in triumph.

Here is all Israel's history in brief, described exactly in a few verses. All their conduct from Moses' time to the cross is set out in a few words: their sin against Jehovah, against Christ, against the prophets, the terrible consequences for the nation, and God's ways with it. So through this great fact of man's sin and Jewish unbelief — that is, through the rejection and crucifixion of the Lord — God would raise Him to His own right hand, and He would become the head of the corner. Here also we have the key of Old Testament scripture by prophecy.

After the great tribulation God will bring Israel to use this verse. Their hearts and minds will be deeply moved. They will see that Jehovah did this in great wisdom, and they will marvel.

It is interesting to notice the constant use of this term "the Stone" for the Lord; it is set apart for this purpose. Isaiah 28 declares Him the Stone laid in Zion. He is a foundation there, and a judgment against the evil Jews who allied themselves with Antichrist and with evil. In chapter 8:14 He is the Sanctuary, but a Stone of stumbling and a rock of offence. In Psalm 118, quoted here, the builders of the Jews reject Him, and He is exalted… In Daniel 2, as we have seen, He is a Stone of judgment, and of stumbling for Israel, and also of foundation and blessing. He is always the Stone of judgment on the whole Gentile power. Here in Luke He falls on Jews at least; but the wording is general — "on whomever" — and so it takes in the Gentile too.

The parable of the tenants (vv. 9-18) sets out the Lord's dealings with Israel. He first let the vineyard to them. Then they rejected "the Heir," and He gave it to others. Nor was this all. The rejected stone becomes the head of the corner. Whoever fell on that stone would be broken; but on whomever it fell, utter destruction would follow. The past sins of Jerusalem illustrate the first. For the second we must wait until the Lord appears and carries out judgment.

The Lord added a most solemn word for their consciences. Those who fall on this stone would be broken. That is, Israel cast out and crucified their Messiah, and history has proved this true (v. 18).

But "on whomever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder." Here the Gentile is in view. It connects with Daniel 2:34-35, 45, which shows Christ as Stone falling on the whole imperial system of Gentile supremacy and grinding it to powder.

Again, in Matthew it is "he that falls," in Luke "Every one," etc. There is breadth in judgment as in grace. Mark does not have the verse at all, since it does not bear on service, the theme of the Spirit through him.

For the one who will work or teach without any thought of God's Messiah, the testing stone has been laid by God in Zion. He will not be able to avoid it. "Whoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken." But a worse fate is foretold for another man. He accepts the testing stone in theory. In practice he works and teaches led by his own wisdom and will. When the top stone is lifted into its place on the summit of his building, it will come crashing down.

Doctors used the word paratērēsis and its related verb for watching the symptoms of a disease. So it means investigating before acting. Astrologers used it too, for watching the stars. When Luke uses the verb (Luke 6:7; Luke 14:1; Luke 20:20), he shows hostile intent.

Men hated Him because He told them the truth. His ministry, His words, His ways, His whole life stood as a testimony against the world. That is why they opposed Him so bitterly and never let up. They let other men pass on by. But they watched Him and lay in wait for Him at every turn of His path.

The men the rulers of Israel sent to trap the Lord are called "spies." They were secret agents. By pretending to be just men, they hoped to catch the Lord in His replies. But they were the ones put to shame, and His wisdom left them confused.

Still the chief priests could not find the courage to seize Him. So they hired secret agents — hypocrites — to give them a believable excuse to put Him under Roman condemnation.

Three great groups represented the people: the Herodians, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees. The Herodian was religious in a political way. The Sadducee was religious in a free-thinking way. The Pharisee was religious in a legal way. But these were only different forms of enmity against God. Human nature can never form an alliance with God's Christ.

It was an artfully laid plot. Pharisees and Herodians! Who will not combine to oppose God and His Son?

They wanted to trap the Lord in a Yes or No that would compromise Him, either with the Jews or with the Romans. If He said Yes, He seemed to be giving up the hopes of Israel. He would only be sealing them up in their bondage to the Romans. How could He be a true-hearted Jew, or the Messiah they expected to set them free, if He left them slaves of Rome as much as ever? If He said No, He would offend that suspicious government. He would give them a charge against Him as a man raising rebel claims to the throne of Palestine.

The Lord's enemies rose up and led Him to Pilate (23:1), the Roman governor who ruled the province of Judea. There they began to accuse Him (v. 2). The charge they brought — that the Lord was misleading the nation and forbidding people to give tribute to Caesar — had no truth in it at all (compare 20:25). But it was designed to reach their goal. Before the religious council they had used the charge of blasphemy. Before Pilate, they used a political charge.

The moral corruption of everyone involved stands out here — both those who paid the bribes and those who took them. Simplicity of purpose detects and exposes the crafty. Jesus sacrifices no duty. Let Caesar have what is his, and God His own.

Those called 'spies' are the men whom the rulers of Israel sent to trap the Lord. They were secret agents. By pretending to be just men, they hoped to catch the Lord in His replies. But His wisdom put them to shame and left them confused. Luke 20:20.

The moral depravity of everyone involved stands out here — both the men who set it up and the men they used. Simplicity of purpose detects and exposes the crafty.

One striking example is the men who came to the Lord Jesus (Luke 20:20-25). They pretended to honour Him by saying: "Teacher, we know that you speak and teach rightly, and show no partiality, but truly teach the way of God." So in effect their mouths blessed Him, but their object was to have Him cursed. Of course the Lord Jesus discerned their falsehood, and silenced them by His wise answer.

Notice how these opponents paid tribute to His perfect truth. Their words were true in a way far beyond anything they realised. In the fullest sense He was the truth and taught the truth, never turned aside by man and his little world. No other servant of God fits that description. Human considerations even influenced Paul, as Acts 21:20-26 shows. Jesus alone is the perfect Servant of God, and He was so poor that He had to ask for a "penny" to be brought to Him.

They sent spies who pretended to be righteous men. But the Lord fully discerned their hypocritical flattery. Yet, enemies as they were, they bore public witness that He taught the way of God in truth (v.21). What a condemnation of their own evil designs!

The question of tribute to Caesar was very subtle. They used the effect of their own wickedness to tempt the Lord. In principle the Jews ought not to have been subject to the Gentiles. And besides, the Messiah had come, the Deliverer of Israel. If He said, Obey the Gentiles, where was His delivering power? If He said, Rebel, they would have had an excuse to hand Him over to Pilate. But the Lord answered with divine wisdom. He put them exactly in the place where their sin had put them: Caesar's things are to be rendered to Caesar, and God's things to God.

They thought they had Him, and it was a sharp, subtle question. He read the moral character of the moment at once and went straight at it. "You come to lay a snare, not to have a difficulty solved. Why do you test Me? Show Me a penny."

Once more the sin of flattery is mentioned. "A man who flatters his neighbor spreads a net for his feet" (verse 5). Flattery is close kin to lying and can never be right. It is always a mistake, and it leads to the gravest consequences. Flattery has spoiled more servants of the Lord than anything else.

There were three great representatives of the people, the Herodians, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees. The Herodian's religion was political. The Sadducee's religion was free-thinking. The Pharisee's religion was legal. But these were only different forms of hostility to God. The flesh can never form an alliance with God's Christ. We must be born again for that. Now they come to Him with a question: "Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?" They thought they had Him. It was a shrewd, subtle question. At once He saw the moral point of the occasion, and went straight at it. "You come to lay a snare, not to have a difficulty solved."

The question of tribute to Caesar was very subtle. They used the effect of their own wickedness to tempt the Lord. In principle the Jews ought not to have been subject to the Gentiles. And, moreover, the Messiah had come, the Deliverer of Israel. If He said, Obey the Gentiles, where was His delivering power? If He said, Rebel, they would have had an excuse to hand Him over to Pilate. Because of Israel's sin, God has broken down the key-stone of nations, and given power to the Gentile.

The Lord's question, "Why put Me to the test?" showed that He was fully aware of their craft. Asking for the penny shows His own poverty. The inscription on the penny was a witness to their subjection to Caesar. His reply was therefore that they must render to Caesar his rights, and yield to God the rights that were His. Caesar had gained the rights of conquest over them because they had not rendered to God the things that were His. All this was so clear, once He pointed it out, that these crafty questioners were silenced.

The Lord was not going to treat Caesar as a usurper. He was the rod of God's anger in the land of Israel. Whether Chaldeans, Persians, Greeks, or Romans, they were no usurpers. So, when the Lord saw Caesar's coin passing through the land, He saw in it Israel's shame, not Caesar's usurpation.

The civil power has rights, and we should respect them. In this case the Caesar on the throne was anything but a pattern of goodness; yet, since he was God's minister (Rom. 13:4), they were to pay him tribute. But God has His rights over men. Men should respect these rights too, and submit to them. Peter once said, "We must obey God rather than men." He was upholding the duty of rendering to God the things that were God's. Paul wrote, "Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed." He was upholding, in turn, the principle of rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. In this way the Lord settled the question for that time, and for all later ages as well.

This was not only a word to silence their objections, and to meet their hypocrisy, but was also a word for their consciences. They bore the image of God, and ought to have rendered to God what belonged to Him. But instead of putting themselves at God's disposal, they stood in opposition to Him and to His Son.

The question of tribute to Caesar was very subtle. They used the effect of their own wickedness to tempt the Lord. In principle the Jews should not have been subject to the Gentiles. And besides, the Messiah had come, the Deliverer of Israel. If He said, Obey the Gentiles, where was His delivering power? If He said, Rebel, they would have had an excuse to hand Him over to Pilate... But the Lord answered with divine wisdom. He put them exactly in the place where their sin had put them.

A common Roman coin. It was the labourer's wages for a day... It was the chief Roman silver coin.

The Lord had no purse. When He wanted to preach on a penny, He had to ask to be shown one. The Lord had the wealthiest purse that anyone ever had in the world; but He never used any of it for Himself.

He asks to be shown the tribute money. ... They say it is Caesar's. Why then ask if he should have it? Every man has a certain right to his own. The answer to their question was stamped upon the coin.

The inscription on the penny was a witness to their subjection to Caesar. His reply was that they must render to Caesar his rights, and yield to God the rights that were His. Caesar had gained the rights of conquest over them because they had not rendered to God the things that were His.

The Lord was not going to treat Caesar as a usurper. He was the rod of God's anger in the land of Israel... So when the Lord saw Caesar's coin passing through the land, He saw in it Israel's shame, not Caesar's usurpation... That was a golden rule ever since their captivity — the rule of returned captives, and so it is our rule. Do you treat the authorities God has appointed as usurpers? No — but do not confuse the rights of Caesar and the rights of God. If there is a collision between them, say with Peter, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge."

Man is God's, for he bears His image. And the Lord says: "Render to God the things that are God's." If these men had given God what belongs to God, they would not have had Caesar's image on their money. Everyone here belongs to God... You are God's, and you claim yourself. You have no right to yourself, for you bear His image and inscription.

The head of the emperor was stamped in the middle of the coin, and the inscription ran round the edge. These marks showed that the coin belonged to Caesar's realm, and it was right that it should be rendered to him... If such marks on the coin were definite proof that it belonged to Caesar, we do well to ask — what and where are the marks of what belongs to God? They are on the whole human race by creation, and — by redemption — more fully upon the saints today.

The question of tribute to Caesar was very subtle. They used the effect of their own wickedness to tempt the Lord. In principle the Jews ought not to have been subject to the Gentiles. And besides, the Messiah had come, the Deliverer of Israel. If He said, Obey the Gentiles, where was His delivering power? If He said, Rebel, they would have had an excuse to hand Him over to Pilate. Because of Israel's sin, God has broken down the keystone of nations and given power to the Gentiles. But the Lord answered with divine wisdom. He put them exactly in the place where their sin had put them.

The Lord's question, "Why put me to the test?" showed that He was fully aware of their craft. His request for the penny reveals His own poverty. The inscription on the penny was a witness to their subjection to Caesar. His reply then was that they must render to Caesar his rights, and yield to God the rights that were His. Caesar had gained the rights of conquest over them because they had not rendered to God the things that were His.

What wisdom the Lord showed here! The civil power has rights, and people should respect them. The Caesar on the throne then was anything but a pattern of goodness. Yet he was God's minister (Romans 13:4), so they had to pay him taxes. But God has His rights over men, and people should respect and submit to them too. On a memorable occasion Peter said, "We must obey God rather than men." He was upholding the duty of rendering to God the things that are God's. Paul wrote, "Taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed." He was upholding in turn the principle of rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. The Lord thus settled the question for that time, and for all later ages as well.

Man is God's, for he bears His image. And the Lord says: "Render to God the things that are God's." If these men had rendered to God the things that were God's, they would not have had Caesar's image on their money. Everyone here belongs to God. Perhaps you say you are not a Christian — you make no profession of religion. That does not matter; you are His creature, you exist to serve Him... You are God's and you claim yourself. You have no right to yourself, for you bear His image and inscription.

For Christian responsibility, the form of government makes no real difference. It may be a dictatorship or a constitutional state; it may be aristocratic or republican... The principle or rule, as regards mankind and the earth, remains untouched... The only limit is this: the Christian owes absolute subjection to God. So when obeying a human government would mean disobeying God, of course he must obey God rather than man. To resist the powers is to resist God's ordinance. Sometimes a Christian may not obey a human command, because it would break God's will. Then his path is suffering, not resistance.

We are not put in the world to make governments or to change them. We are here to seek the interests of our Lord. At the same time we give all proper honour and subjection to governments, whatever they may be. The instructions apply to such matters as taxes and revenue... We are to pay all that is due in local taxes, customs duties, and income tax. What the authorities may do with our money once they get it is their matter, not ours. In the mercy of God we are relieved of that heavy responsibility.

The moral depravity of everyone involved is very marked here, both in those who set it up and those they used. Simplicity of purpose detects and exposes the crafty. Jesus sacrifices no duty. Let Caesar have what is his, and God His own. The world-pleasers and the zealots were equally defeated. They set one duty against another, and did neither properly, because each was seeking self.

His answer reduced them to helplessness. He made them admit their servitude to Caesar by an appeal to their own coinage. Their lips, not His, pronounced it to be Caesar's image. Then He gave the answer to their question. In the light of their own admission it was perfectly obvious. But He also used it to introduce the far weightier matter of God's claims upon them.

The inscription on the coin was a witness to their subjection to Caesar. His reply, then, was that they must give Caesar his rights, and give God the rights that were His. They had not rendered to God the things that were His. That is why Caesar had gained the rights of conquest over them. Once pointed out, all this was so undeniable that these crafty questioners fell silent.

The Lord was not going to treat Caesar as an illegal ruler. He was the rod of God's anger in the land of Israel. Whether Chaldeans, Persians, Greeks, or Romans, they were no usurpers. So the Lord saw Caesar's coin passing through the land. In it He saw Israel's shame, not a seizure of power by Caesar.

The civil power has rights, and they should be respected. In this case the Caesar on the throne was anything but a model of goodness. Yet he was God's minister (Rom. 13:4), so tribute had to be paid to him. But God has His rights over men. These should be respected too, and submitted to. "We must obey God rather than men," said Peter on a memorable occasion... The Lord settled the question for that time, and for every age since. God has claims on His people, and so does the properly established civil power. Both are to be respected and practically acknowledged.

Man is God's, for he bears His image. And the Lord says: "Render to God the things that are God's." Suppose these men had rendered to God the things that were God's. Then they would not have had the image of Caesar on their money. Everyone here belongs to God... If you are still in your sins you are not rendering to God what is God's. You are robbing Him. You are God's and you claim yourself. You have no right to yourself, for you bear His image and inscription.

Seeing the wisdom of the Lord's reply, they marvelled, but sad to say, they had no conscience toward God or man.

Here the attempt to get something against Him for His condemnation ended... Neither before the Jewish council nor before the Roman court could they bring a just charge against the Lord.

Next to the Pharisees, the Sadducees were the most prominent sect of the Jews. The Pharisees made converts. The Sadducees were far more exclusive, so they stayed fewer in number. They did not believe in the resurrection, or in angels, or in spirits. They held that the soul died with the body. They were strict about the written law of Moses, but they rejected the traditions of the elders — the oral law. They believed that God punished a man's sins during his life, and that man's will was free, so he had power to hold back his desires. This made them severe judges... The beliefs of modern rationalists have much in common with the Sadducees.

This is the first and only time that Luke in his Gospel mentions them... They were the materialists of their day. They denied the resurrection and the existence of angels or spirits (Acts 23:8), and very likely paid little attention to His teaching... On this occasion they saw that the Pharisees had been silenced. They were not sorry, we may believe, that their opponents had been beaten. So they came to the Lord with what we may call a test case, one that settled for them that resurrection was impossible... If they could put a question He could not answer well, how great their triumph would be.

The Sadducees were the party of unbelief. All the apparent strength of unbelief lies in raising difficulties, in inventing imaginary cases that do not apply, and in reasoning from the things of men to the things of God. The whole basis is false assumption... Their question also took for granted the resurrection — the very thing they denied.

First, the Lord's answer to the Sadducees about the resurrection (Luke 20:27-38). These Sadducees were consistent in their unbelief. Since they denied resurrection, they also denied that the spirit exists on its own after death. It is this last point that the Lord takes up and proves, and by it He proves the resurrection.

His reply to the Sadducees adds three important things to what Matthew records. First, this is not only about the state of those who are raised, or about the certainty of the resurrection. It is an age which only one class will receive, those counted worthy of it — a separate resurrection of the just (v. 35). Second, this class is made up of the children of God, because they are the children of the resurrection (v. 36). Third, while they wait for this resurrection, their souls survive death. All live to God, even though they may be hidden from the eyes of men (v. 38).

The difficulty existed only for unbelief — or rather, unbelief made it. What else can unbelief ever claim to do? It imagines difficulties, and nowhere more than about the most certain truth of God. The resurrection is the great truth to which all things turn. The Lord has shown it in its final form in His own person, now raised from the dead... The most active sect among the Jews at that time fought this truth and refused it. They were the most intellectual and, humanly speaking, the best informed. These were the people who set themselves against it most of all.

They were the materialists of their day. They denied the resurrection and the existence of angels or spirits, and probably took little interest in His teaching. This time they saw that the Pharisees had been silenced, and we may believe they were not sorry to see their rivals beaten. So they came to the Lord with what we may call a test case. To their minds it proved that resurrection was impossible. The Pharisees were looking for a charge to bring against Him in the religious or the civil court. The Sadducees had no such plan. But if they could ask a question He could not answer well, what a triumph that would be!

The New Testament states plainly that Moses wrote the books. In Matthew 22:24 the Jews said to our Lord, "Moses said." In John 8:5 they said, "Moses commanded us in the law." Again in Mark 12:19, and in Luke 20:28, they said, "Moses wrote for us." In His reply the Lord confirms this view of who wrote the law. He says, "Have you not read in the book of Moses?"

The law made a special provision for what is called a levirate marriage. If a man died childless, his surviving brother had to marry the widow. This preserved the dead man's share of the inheritance, so that his name would not be blotted out of Israel (Deuteronomy 25:5-6).

In Israel, to be childless was a disgrace. For a man's name to be blotted out — for his family to die out — was seen as a special mark of God's displeasure. The Sadducees, in our Lord's day, might use this merciful provision to mock the truth of resurrection. But they only showed their ignorance of the Scriptures and the power of God. God made this provision for life on earth, not for the life to come.

Here again, it was only a difficulty. The Sadducees were the unbelieving party. All the apparent strength of unbelief lies in raising difficulties, in inventing imaginary cases that do not apply, and in reasoning from the things of men to the things of God. The whole thing rests on a false assumption. The Lord says to them, "Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?" As usual, they showed their ignorance of the Scriptures, despite all their big claims. Otherwise they would never have put such a case. Besides, their question assumed the resurrection — the very thing they denied.

They had quoted from the law of Moses in support of their position. The Lord disproved their view from the law itself, quoting Exodus 3:6. How simply He turned the tables. In their eyes Deuteronomy 25:5 showed how foolish it was to expect a resurrection. Exodus 3:6 plainly implied one. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had died long before God spoke this way to Moses; yet He was still their God. So they did exist, for He is not the God of something that does not exist.

This is the first and only time Luke mentions them in his Gospel... They were the materialists of their day. They denied the resurrection, and they denied that angels or spirits exist (Acts 23:8). They probably took little interest in His teaching. They seem to have been stirred into determined opposition only when the apostles were "proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead" (Acts 4:2). On this occasion the Pharisees had been silenced, and we may believe the Sadducees were not sorry to see their rivals beaten. So they came to the Lord with what we may call a test case. To their minds it settled that a resurrection was impossible.

So they came to Him with a difficulty they claimed was based on the Word of God. In this way they made Holy Scripture a ground for disbelieving a truth that God's revelation puts beyond dispute. The law made a special provision for what is called a levirate marriage. If a man died childless, his surviving brother had to marry the widow. This kept the dead man's share of the inheritance and kept his name from being blotted out of Israel (Deut. 25:5-6).

They were determined to prove there is no resurrection, so they thought up a case that was very unlikely, to say the least... They imagine seven brothers who each married the same woman in turn, and then died. In the resurrection, they ask, which man would have her? Of course, if only two had married her, they could have asked the same question. But they wanted to make the truth of resurrection look as ridiculous as they could.

They present a case that would make the resurrection ridiculous and impossible — if what their folly imagined were true. For they assume that the relationships and conditions of this world carry on in the next. This is what people do. They mix their own thoughts in with God's word. Then, because those thoughts do not agree with it, they decide His word makes no sense and reject it.

In the resurrection state there will be no such relationships. The difficulty existed only for unbelief — or rather, unbelief made it. Indeed, what else can disbelief ever claim to do? It imagines difficulties, and nowhere more than with the most certain truth of God. The resurrection is the great truth on which everything turns. The Lord has shown it in its final form in His own person, now raised from the dead — though when He spoke, His rising was still just ahead.

The Sadducees of that day, like many people in later ages, could imagine nothing different from what they had known. Here on earth marriages take place. So in their thinking, if there was a resurrection, people must marry there too. Their conclusion was false... Death does not reign there. So marriage, which keeps the human race going on earth, has no place above... The test case that seemed to those Sadducees to settle the matter against a resurrection broke down at once. The condition it needs in order to hold will not exist.

It was a quibble they raised to test the Lord... Now what does this mean — "considered worthy to attain to... the resurrection from the dead"? You see, it is counted a special favour. If you do get the resurrection from the dead, you will be "equal to angels." It cannot mean that people raised to be condemned are equal to the angels.

They imagine a case of seven brothers who die after each one in turn has had the same wife. In the resurrection, they ask, which man would have her? If only two had married her, they could have asked the same question. But they wanted to make the truth of resurrection look as ridiculous as they could.

A case like the one the Sadducees describe may be possible. But it is unlikely that the case they put to Him was real. It was no doubt made up for the occasion. Ignorance, unbelief and sarcasm prompted this question.

The law made a special provision, called a levirate marriage. If a man died childless, his surviving brother had to marry the widow. This kept the dead man's share of the inheritance in the family, so his name would not be wiped out of Israel (Deut. 25:5-6).

In Israel, to be childless was a disgrace, and for a man's name to be wiped out — his family dying out — was seen as a special mark of God's displeasure. The Sadducees, in our Lord's day, might try to ridicule the truth of resurrection by bringing in this merciful provision. But they only showed their ignorance of "the Scriptures and the power of God." God had made that provision for the earthly life, not the future one.

They believed only in the material world, denying the resurrection and the existence of angels or spirits (Acts 23:8). They very likely paid little attention to His teaching. They seem to have turned into determined opponents only when the Apostles "preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead" (Acts 4:2).

They did not know the Scriptures — that was ignorance. They did not know the power of God — that was unbelief. Their unbelieving error rested on these two pillars. Modern unbelief of the Sadducee kind rests on the same two pillars. Those who hold it misquote, misinterpret, or otherwise twist Scripture, again and again. And they think of God as anything but Almighty — as just a man, though with greater powers than ours.

The difficulty existed only for unbelief — or rather, unbelief made it. What else can unbelief ever claim to do? It invents difficulties, and nowhere more than in the most certain truth of God.

The Sadducees of that day, like many people in later ages, could imagine nothing different from what they had known. Here marriages take place. So in their thinking, if there was a resurrection, there must be marriages in heaven too. Their conclusion was wrong. Marriages do not take place among the saints in heaven... Death does not reign there, so marriage, which carries on the human race on earth, has no place in heaven.

The Lord reveals the state of those who are raised, and shows how ignorant and foolish the reasoning of the Sadducees was. It is a high and holy state, where what is only earthly will have passed away for ever. Things God set up, and honoured here, will have passed away there.

The Sadducees were the materialists of that day. They stood for the unbelief of the flesh. One writer has rightly said, "The strength of unbelief lies in raising difficulties, in inventing imaginary cases which do not apply, and in reasoning from the things of men to the things of God." So here these wicked men try to oppose the truth by ridicule. They invent an imaginary case which they think shows that resurrection is absurd. As usual with unbelievers, they show gross ignorance of Scripture and they ignore the power of God. If Scripture had said that people marry in the resurrection state, their imaginary case might really have raised a difficulty. If God had no power, the resurrection itself would be impossible.

In this matter people hardly kept the law in those days, and the teachers of this law had added all kinds of limits to it. A case like the one the Sadducees told could of course happen. But it is unlikely that they laid a real case before Him. They almost certainly made it up for the occasion. Ignorance, unbelief and sarcasm prompted this question.

They put forward a case that makes the resurrection look ridiculous and impossible — but only if you first grant the foolish thing they imagined. They assume that the relationships and conditions of this world carry on into the next. This is what people do. They mix their own thoughts into God's word, and because their thoughts do not fit it, they decide it makes no sense and reject it.

The Sadducees of that day, like many people since, could imagine nothing different from what they had known. Here marriages take place. So in their thinking, if there was a resurrection, there must be marriages in heaven too. Their conclusion was false. Marriages do not take place among the saints in heaven. And the Lord gives a reason for that, which only Luke reports: "for they cannot die anymore." Death does not reign there. Marriage keeps the human race going on earth, so it has no place above. The test case, which those Sadducees thought settled the matter against resurrection, broke down at once. The condition it needs to be valid will not exist.

You see, it counts as a special favour. If you get the resurrection from the dead at all, you will be "equal to the angels." It cannot mean that people who rise to be condemned are equal to the angels.

They have died as far as people are concerned, but as to God, wicked or saints, all live. This is not limited to saints; it is true of every person. Before, He had been speaking of the resurrection of the saints, and only of that resurrection. Now He declares that for God all live. He denies that death is the end of existence, and He does so absolutely and positively.

The law made a special provision for what is called a levirate marriage. If a man died childless, his surviving brother had to marry the widow. This preserved the dead man's share of the inheritance, so that his name should not be blotted out of Israel (Deuteronomy 25:5-6). They claimed such a case had happened. Seven brothers, one after the other, had married the same woman, following this law. All had died without children. At last the woman died also.

In Israel, to be childless was a disgrace. For a man's name to be blotted out — for his family to die out — was taken as a special mark of God's displeasure. The Sadducees, in our Lord's day, might try to ridicule the truth of resurrection by bringing in this merciful provision, but they only showed their ignorance of the Scriptures and the power of God. God had made that provision for life on earth, not for the life to come.

The Sadducees were the materialists of that day, and represented the unbelief of the flesh. It has been well said: "The strength of unbelief lies in raising difficulties, in inventing imaginary cases that do not apply, in reasoning from the things of men to the things of God." So here these wicked men try to oppose the truth by ridicule. They invent a case which they think shows that resurrection is absurd… If Scripture had said that people marry in the resurrection state, their imaginary case might indeed have presented a difficulty. If God had no power, the resurrection itself would be impossible.

Their question also took the resurrection for granted, and that was the very thing they denied. Whose would this woman be, who had the seven husbands one after another? The answer is, she would belong to none of them then. No one takes up earthly ties again in the resurrection. People do not rise from the dead as husbands and wives, parents and children, masters or servants.

The Sadducees of that day, like many a person in later ages, could imagine nothing different from what they had known. Here marriages take place. So in their thinking, if there was a resurrection, there must be marriages on high too. Their conclusion was false… And the Lord gives a reason for it, reported only by Luke: "they cannot die anymore." Death does not reign there. So marriage, which keeps the human race going on earth, has no place on high… The test case seemed final to those Sadducees against a resurrection, but it broke down at once.

They raised a quibble, testing the Lord… Now what does this mean — "considered worthy to attain to the resurrection from the dead"? You see, it is counted a special favour. If you do get the resurrection from the dead, you will be "equal to angels." This cannot mean that people raised to be condemned are equal to the angels.

They had quoted from the law of Moses in support of their position. The Lord answered their belief from the law, quoting Exodus 3:6… How simply He turned the tables. In their eyes, Deuteronomy 25:5 proved the folly of looking for a resurrection. Exodus 3:6 plainly implied a resurrection. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had died long before God spoke to Moses in this way; yet He was still their God. So they did exist, for He is not a God of those who do not exist… Where Scripture does not state a truth outright, it may still teach it by implication.

Notice this in particular — Luke alone, of all the Gospel writers, here describes men, in the activities of this life, as "the children of this world," or age. They are persons who live merely for the present.

They look ahead, though only on the earth, for they have a keen sense of their best earthly interests. But it is different when it comes to the soul, to heaven, to Christ's love, to God's nature and will. Men tend to let the smallest present advantage blot out all right thought of the future.

He contrasted "this world" and "that world," really using the word that means "age." Some will "obtain that age" as living men on earth, without passing through death and resurrection. But those who "obtain that age and the resurrection" will enter altogether new conditions of life. They will be deathless like the angels, and marriage will have no application to them.

Ignorance lay at the root of their opposition, as the Lord made clear to them: ignorance of the condition of people in the other world, and ignorance of the Scriptures of truth. The Sadducees of that day, like many people in later ages, could imagine nothing different from what they already knew. Here marriages take place. So in their thinking, if there was a resurrection, there must be marriages above too. Their reasoning was faulty. Marriages do not take place among the saints in heaven. And the Lord gives a reason for this, reported only by Luke: "neither can they die any more." Death does not reign there. Marriage keeps the human race going on earth, so it has no place above.

There is not a line in Scripture to say that the relationships of earth will be continued in heaven. We shall not rise as husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants, but in this respect shall be as the angels. We shall not be angels, as some people wrongly imagine. We shall be like them in being free from earthly relationships. The believer will enjoy privileges and heavenly relationships far above those of angels, and far above the passing relationships of this present state.

They are relationships in nature, formed on the earth and to be carried out in daily life. There will be no such relationships in heaven. They do not belong to the resurrection state. They belong to nature, to earth, to our time-condition. We are called to walk in them as Christian men, women and children. We are to glorify God in them by our spirit, our temper, our manner and our whole conduct, from hour to hour and day to day.

Marriage is only for this world. He was not speaking of those who die in their sins and rise for judgment at the Great White Throne. He spoke only of those accounted worthy — by grace through faith — to obtain "that world," the glory of heaven, and the resurrection from among the dead.

How could people be "counted worthy" to obtain a general resurrection which no one can lose? Or be the children of God as being the children of a general resurrection?

The Sadducees of that day, like many a person in later ages, could conceive of nothing different from what they had known. Here marriages take place. So in their thinking, if there was a resurrection, marriages must also be contracted on high. Their conclusion was faulty.

"They who shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead." This would be an extraordinary expression if all rose at the same time. "They that shall be counted worthy to obtain that age" — that last word does not mean the material world. It means a special dispensation or age, which the unworthy do not obtain.

He contrasted "this world" and "that world," using the word which means "age." Some will "obtain that age" as living people on earth, without passing through death and resurrection. But those who "obtain that age and the resurrection" will enter completely new conditions of life. They will be deathless as the angels, and marriage will not apply to them.

Marriages do not take place among the saints in heaven. And the Lord gives a reason for that, reported only by Luke: they cannot die any more. Death does not reign there. So marriage, by which the human race is continued on earth, has no place above.

How could people be "counted worthy" to obtain a general resurrection which no one can lose? Or be the children of God because they are children of a general resurrection?

Marriage is only for this world. He was not speaking of those who die in their sins and will rise for judgment at the Great White Throne. He spoke only of those counted worthy — by grace through faith — to obtain "that world," the glory of heaven, and the resurrection from among the dead.

[The disciples] clearly distinguished between the resurrection of the dead, and the rising from among the dead ones. It implied that some of the dead would rise, while others still remained in their graves. It was a rising from among the dead ones… Notice that this speaks only of those who will be counted worthy to obtain the resurrection from among the dead ones. I call particular attention to this. It at once sets aside the idea of a general resurrection of the saved and lost.

The resurrection of Christ was not merely a resurrection of the dead, but out of the dead. He left them undisturbed in their tombs… And it is the same with the saints in principle. Theirs is to be a resurrection from among the dead. The rest of the dead must rise at another time.

Is this not a resurrection of great privilege? Will everyone rise together, equal to the angels, the children of God?… Do not rest until you know that this privilege is yours.

The Sadducees of that day could imagine nothing different from what they had known, and so could many people in later ages. Here marriages take place. So in their thinking, if there was a resurrection, there must be marriages in heaven too. Their conclusion was false. Marriages do not take place among the saints in heaven. And the Lord gives a reason for that, reported, as we find, only by Luke: "for they cannot die anymore." Death does not reign there. So marriage, which keeps the human race going on earth, has no place on high.

Even those who misuse the text do not deny that the angels are immortal. Our Lord has certainly stated that this is their condition. The risen saints will be like them in this respect. "They cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels" (Luke 20:36). So God alone having immortality is perfectly consistent with the immortality of angels.

They are equal to the angels: above the conditions of the body in this present life.

Such people will then rise from among the great mass of the dead, and God will make them equal in condition to the angels. Our calling is higher, for we are children and sons, while angels are only servants. Our condition until the Lord's coming is lower, but He will change that then by His mighty power.

"Sons of the resurrection." This is a Hebrew way of speaking that we have already met. Compare "sons of the bride-chamber" (Luke 5:34), "sons of peace" (Luke 10:6), and "sons of this age" (Luke 16:8).

Believers are like the angels, who are neither male nor female, as we are told about the new creation (Galatians 3:27-28). They are sons of God. That relationship and dignity stands higher than every natural tie. They are sons of the resurrection — brought into a world that human thinking on its own has never reached.

The wicked will rise to be judged. The others will rise because they have been accounted worthy to obtain the resurrection which Jesus has obtained. This passage proves a resurrection which concerns the children of God alone. They are the sons of God, being the sons of the resurrection. To be a son of God, and to have part in this resurrection, is the title and inheritance of the same persons.

We must be "accounted worthy" to have part in this resurrection. It is not one that nobody can miss. Grace gives each person his place in it.

The terms "first resurrection" and "second death" are opposites. All who have no part in the one will certainly share in the other. The second death is the lake of fire. Into it the raised wicked dead are cast. But this dreadful death — dying, yet never dead in body — has no claim and no authority over those in the first resurrection. They "cannot die anymore." Their bodies are immortal. They can no more die than can angels (Luke 20:36).

The Lord does not quote the clearest Scripture about the resurrection. In the circumstances He does something much better: He appeals to what they themselves claimed to respect most of all. For the Sadducee no part of Scripture carried the authority of the five books of Moses. So from Moses He proved the resurrection, and in the simplest possible way.

In those days the books were not divided into chapters and verses as they are now, and this explains several expressions. In Mark 2:26 a quotation comes from "the section of Abiathar the high priest" (1 Samuel 21:1-6). In Luke 20:37, "Moses showed in the section on the bush" (Exodus 3).

So in Luke we read, in the same connection, "But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham" (Luke 20:37). This shows beyond doubt that the human author was Moses. The parallel passage in Matthew 22:31 adds a word about the divine inspiration of the same words: "Have you not read what was said to you by God, 'I am the God of Abraham'".

If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had ceased to exist, could God still have taken their names — the name of nothing — to describe Himself to Israel? He might have said, "I am He who was with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, when they existed." Even that would have been a completely unworthy relationship — the God of men who had no more than an animal existence. God describes Himself by them, and is not ashamed to be called their God. Could He describe Himself by a mere dying animal — by men who, at the moment He calls Himself their God, did not exist at all?

Further, though they were dead, their body was an essential part of who they were, for man is made of three parts: spirit, soul, and body. So the body must rise again. Abraham could not be complete without his body. The spirit of Abraham is one thing; the body of Abraham is another. But if we speak of Abraham, we speak of one to whom spirit, soul, and body all belong.

Though dead to this scene, they still live and will rise again to enjoy the promises of God, which, sin having come in, can only be fulfilled on resurrection ground.

In this way Exodus 3:6 taught by implication the very truth the Sadducees denied. From the Lord's use of it we learn this: where a truth is not stated outright, something may still teach it by implication. So we need to weigh the statements of God's Word carefully.

When did God say that? Centuries after those men were buried. And He said it through Moses. He did not say, "I was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." That destroys the false idea that the dead have no consciousness, or that they stop existing until the body is raised. God is not the God of the dead but the living. If they had stopped existing for a time, He would have said, "I was their God." If He were looking ahead to the resurrection, He would have said, "I shall be." He said neither.

"God is not the God of the dead [utterly and eternally perished, which was the sense in which the Sadducees used it, with whom He was disputing] but of the living."

God says at the bush, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." But if He stood in that relationship to them then, they must exist for Him to be so. He could not be the God of the dead — dead in the Sadducee sense, meaning non-existent. They must be alive in some sense, alive to Him, and so they are.

God sent Moses out from "the bush" to be their deliverer. He sent him under that title, "the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob," as the "I am" who had looked on His people and cared for them. The teaching of the Sadducees could never have been the good news of that deliverance, nor its inspiration. A living God in covenant with men meant life, not death; and if death was there, then a life supreme over it. So resurrection was the necessary filling out of such a declaration. The hand God held out to man was not to clasp the limp fingers of a corpse.

Then He says that even Moses showed this at the bush: God is not "a God of the dead but of the living." Then He lays the foundation of an absolute fact He had not spoken of before at all: "For all live to Him." They have died as far as men are concerned. But as to God, wicked or saints, all live. Before this He had been speaking of the resurrection of the saints, and only of that. Now He declares that for God all live. He denies that death is the end of existence, and He does it in an absolute and positive way.

Not only is God not the God of the dead, but of the living; "all live to Him" (verse 38). Two great truths are present here — living to God after death, and future resurrection, when Jesus comes and brings in the new age. This was especially valuable for Gentiles. One of the great problems for them was whether the soul existed after death, let alone the resurrection of the body.

Luke now adds a few words of universal importance, which deeply concern all men: "For all live to Him." Dead to us here, they live to God. So death does not end any man's existence. This refers of course to all the dead, and therefore concerns all the living.

Meanwhile the Sadducees were silenced. No Gospel writer records what they felt when they received the Lord's reply. Matthew tells us the effect on the crowd (22:33): "they were astonished at his teaching." Mark (12:28) hints at the impression made on one of the scribes. Luke records what some of them said, and leaves us in no doubt about their judgment of it: "Teacher, you have spoken well" (20:39). The Lord had met both the Pharisees and the Sadducees on their own chosen ground, and He defeated both. "They no longer dared," writes Luke, "to ask him any question" (20:40). Now He was free to question them.

The Lord does not quote the clearest Scripture about the resurrection. In the circumstances He does something much better. He appeals to what they themselves claimed to revere most. To the Sadducee no part of Scripture carried such authority as the five books of Moses. So from Moses He proved the resurrection, and in the simplest possible way. Everyone — their own conscience — must admit that God is the God, not of the dead, but of the living.

The Lord went on to prove the resurrection from Exodus 3:6. If the patriarchs were alive to God centuries after they were dead to this world, their final resurrection was a certainty. So He answered not only the foolish question of the Sadducees, but the unbelief behind the question.

In this case a vital, basic truth is in question. By the wisdom of His answer the Lord reduces His enemies to silence and exposes their hypocrisy. But He does more: He clearly reveals the truth itself, which the Old Testament teaches in a hidden way, and gives it His own authority.

Our Gospel, it is worth noticing here, gives several distinct truths beyond what is found in Matthew and Mark. Resurrection from among the dead (not resurrection in general) has its own proper age. It is a time of special blessedness, which the resurrection of the unjust cannot be called... The resurrection from among the dead is for the righteous, who die no more. They are equal to angels and sons of God, being sons of the resurrection... God is Abraham's God and will raise the dead to enjoy the promises not yet fulfilled. He is not God of dead men but of living, for to Him all live, even before the resurrection comes as well as when it does come. So Luke, more than the other Gospel writers, gives us a full glimpse of the state of the dead before resurrection. He gives the certainty of resurrection and glory too.

Some of the scribes (but probably not the Sadducees) could not help admiring the wisdom of the Lord's words, but all were silenced. Then the Lord asked a question far more important than the ones they had asked Him. They could not answer it, though they should have known it from their Old Testament Scriptures. Why did the scribes say that Christ, the Messiah, was David's son, when David himself in Psalm 110:1 plainly called the Messiah "Lord"? (v. 41). There could be no doubt about how that Scripture applied. The scribes could not dispute it, yet they had no reply.

By His question the Lord gave the key to what so many had not understood — but in vain. We read of no one convinced by it... He had truly silenced those who opposed Him, yet He did more than silence them. Many a debater has been utterly crushed by a spirited reply or a clever retort. The Lord's object was, while silencing all, to help everyone who really wanted help.

Then in Luke 20 come the various parties to judge Him, really to be judged themselves. The chief priests and the scribes with the elders demand His authority... Next, we have His reply to the spies who wanted to trap Him with the civil authorities... The unorthodox Sadducees came next with their problem about the resurrection. He showed that there was nothing in it but their ignorance of how glorious the resurrection is — something present experience gives no hint of.

The Lord proceeded to prove the resurrection from Exodus 3:6. If the patriarchs were alive to God, centuries after they were dead to this world, their resurrection at the end was certain. So He answered not only the foolish question of the Sadducees, but the unbelief behind it. And He answered with such authority that even a scribe admired and approved what He said, and they were all afraid to ask Him any more questions.

Meanwhile the Lord had silenced the Sadducees. No gospel writer records what they felt when they heard His reply... He had met both the Pharisees and the Sadducees on their own chosen ground, and He had defeated them. As Luke writes, "they no longer dared to ask Him any question" (20:40). Now then He was free to question them.

The Lord then asked them His great question, based on Psalm 110. No answer was possible except to the faith that saw the divine glory of the Christ, and they had no faith. They were silent in stubborn unbelief. Answer His question they could not; ask Him any further question they dared not.

Resurrection from among the dead (not resurrection in general) has its own age, a time of special blessedness... That resurrection is for the righteous, who die no more. They are equal to angels and sons of God, sons of the resurrection... God is Abraham's God, and He will raise the dead to enjoy the promises not yet fulfilled. He is not the God of dead men but of living men. To Him all live — before the resurrection comes as well as when it does come. So Luke, more than any other Gospel writer, gives us a full glimpse of the state of those who have died, as well as the certainty of resurrection and glory.

Near the end of the chapter (v. 39-44) our Lord raises the great question of His own person. He also raises the question of the place He was about to take — not on the throne of David, but on the throne of God. Did not David acknowledge Him — David's own Son — as his Lord? On the person and position of Christ depends the whole of Christianity.

They are silenced — Pharisees, Herodians, Sadducees, all the leaders of the unhappy people. Then He turns on them with a question that reaches the bottom of the whole controversy: the question of His Person, of the true glory of Christ. Was He merely David's Son? Why then did David, speaking by the Spirit, call Him "Lord," saying, "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet"? How could He be his Son and yet his Lord? No one could give an answer that did not admit His higher nature.

The Lord now asked a question far more important than the ones they had asked Him. They could not answer it, though they should have known it from their Old Testament Scriptures. Why did the scribes say the Messiah was David's son, when David himself called the Messiah "Lord" in Psalm 110:1? No one could doubt how that Scripture applied. The scribes could not dispute it, yet they had no answer.

There is and could be but one answer. The Messiah, David's son, must have been a Divine Person to be David's Lord. This is the everlasting puzzle of unbelief, and now as then it is the stumbling-stone to the Jew... Without the Godhead of Jesus, true man though He is, Christianity is a delusion, a fraud, and an impossibility. Without it, Judaism too was meaningless child's play.

The fact is that both are true: He is not only "the Offspring of David" — David's Descendant — but "the root of David" (Rev. 22:16). As Man He is David's son, but as God He is David's Lord. Though as Man He came from David, yet since He is God over all, it is just as true that David came from Him... Many today repeat this same tragic ignorance, even people who claim to be Christian. They admit that Jesus was a great man. But they forget — and often flatly deny — that He is God manifest in flesh.

Towards the end of the chapter our Lord raises the great question of His own person, and of the position He was about to take. It was not the throne of David, but the throne of God. On the person and position of Christ depends the whole of Christianity. Judaism, lowering the person, does not see the position, or denies it... He who humbled Himself as man in suffering is exalted as man to the glory of God on high.

Is it not a sad and terrible thing that you have sent the Lord to the right hand of His Father, to wait there till His enemies are made His footstool? You will say, "He has gone there to help me, a poor sinner." Yes, but you have sent Him there too. You see Him waiting for the need of poor sinners. He is also waiting till He comes out to judge His enemies at the end of the world. Miss that, and your view is very imperfect.

In this title divine and human glories unite. Jesus is David's Lord and David's Son. And this is the great test for every man, for no one has a right to the name of Christian who denies either one or the other... They were speechless and had no answer to this great mystery. It is a mystery to us also, for we cannot explain it. But what we cannot explain we can believe.

It was now the Lord's turn to propose His question in order to bring out His own position. He asks the Pharisees to square the title Son of David with the title Lord, which David himself gave Him. And He ties this to the ascension of this same Christ, who goes up to sit at the right hand of God until God has made all His enemies His footstool and has established His throne in Zion. Now this was the whole of Christ's position at that moment. They were unable to answer Him, and no man dared ask Him any more questions. To understand that Psalm would have been to understand all God's ways with His Son — at the very moment they were going to reject Him.

The Lord Himself said that David wrote Psalm 110. He claimed inspiration for it when He said, "David himself said by the Holy Spirit" (Mark 12:36). In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and in the Acts of the Apostles, we get the affirmation that David wrote this Psalm.

God gave the whole collection its title, "The Book of Psalms" (Luke 20:42). He also had them numbered for easier reference, as "the Second Psalm" (Acts 13:33). The Psalms are inspired, and their arrangement is Divine.

In the opening words of this psalm, the first "LORD" is in capital letters. When it is printed that way, it usually means Jehovah. So the verse could read, "Jehovah said to my Lord" — that is, Jehovah said to Christ… How could Jesus be both David's Son, and David's Lord? The answer is simple enough. As David's Lord, He was the Creator of David, for God created all things by His Son. But He was born of Mary, who came from the house and family line of David, so He was David's Son.

There is and could be but one answer. The Messiah, David's son, must have been a Divine Person to be David's Lord. This is the never-ending puzzle of unbelief, and then as now it is the stumbling block for the Jew… Without the Godhead of Jesus, real man though He is, Christianity is a delusion, a fraud, and an impossibility.

Toward the end of the chapter our Lord raises the great question of who He is. He also raises the position He was about to take — not on the throne of David, but on the throne of God… He humbled Himself as man in suffering, and as man He is exalted to the glory of God on high.

This first verse announces the coronation of Jesus, after He had accomplished redemption and risen from the dead… Jehovah righteously welcomes Him as the Conqueror of all our enemies, the One who triumphed over death, Satan, and the grave, and installs Him in the highest place of honour, power, and glory.

And the Lord Jesus Christ, rejected by man, is sitting at God's right hand as Man, waiting until His enemies are made His footstool. Meanwhile patient grace is at work, calling sinners to know the salvation He has accomplished.

There is and could be but one answer. The Messiah, David's son, must have been a Divine Person in order to be David's Lord — the endless riddle of unbelief, now as then the stumbling-stone to the Jew. Yet the Old Testament presents it as surely as the New does, if not as clearly or as often. It is essential to His proper dignity. It increases the grace of God beyond measure. And it is needed if there is to be an unbreakable rock of salvation, whether for an Israelite or for anyone else. Without the Godhead of Jesus — however truly man He is — Christianity is a delusion, a fraud, and an impossibility.

Towards the end of the chapter (v. 39-44) our Lord puts the great question of His own person, and of the position He was just about to take. That position was not on the throne of David, but on the throne of God. Was not He Himself, David's Son, owned as his Lord by David? The whole of Christianity depends on the person and position of Christ. Judaism lowers the person, and so does not see the position, or denies it. Christianity rests not on the work only, but on the glory of the person and place of Him who is glorified in God. He takes that place as man.

In the last Adam we have Him who was God humbling Himself, going down, becoming obedient to death — even the vilest death. Then we see that humbled One going back to the place of power at God's right hand, but as man as well as God. God highly exalted Him, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow. He obeyed all through, in humiliation, and God exalts Him to be David's Lord. This took Him out of the line of Jewish promises, though of course as David's Son He had them.

Now He speaks to Him in resurrection, saying, "Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool." Jehovah acknowledges Him as Lord and places Him at His right hand. But it is "until…" There is a prospect before Him. So the seat He takes, exalted as it is, holds only for a time — until that prospect becomes fact. The day of His poverty is over. The day of His patience is begun.

This means the rule of power, not of love — enemies conquered, not enemies reconciled… "When Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until His enemies should be made a footstool for His feet." These are quotations from Psalm 110. Taken together, they show Jesus undergoing death, then seated at God's right hand. There He waits for the time when God will put all things under His feet and make His enemies His footstool. The first of these expressions might perhaps mean gradual reconciliation. The second cannot possibly mean it. No language could state forcible conquest more strongly.

Is it not a sad and terrible thing that you have sent the Lord to the right hand of His Father, there to wait until His enemies are made His footstool? You will say, "He has gone there to help me, a poor sinner." Yes, but you have sent Him there too. You may see Him waiting on the need of poor sinners. But if you do not also see Him waiting until He comes out to judge His enemies at the end of the world, your view is very incomplete. His grace has put Him there as the High Priest of our confession; our enmity has put Him there as waiting for judgment.

In the opening words of this psalm, the first "LORD" is in capital letters. Printed that way, it usually means Jehovah. So we can read the verse as, "Jehovah said to my Lord" — that is, Jehovah said to Christ… How could Jesus be both David's Son and David's Lord? The answer is simple enough. As David's Lord, He was the Creator of David, for God created all things by His Son. But He was born of Mary, who came from the house and family of David, so He was David's Son.

The Lord then asked them His great question, based on Psalm 110… Only faith could answer — faith that saw the divine glory of the Christ. They had no faith. They were silent in stubborn unbelief. They could not answer His question, and they dared not ask Him any more.

At first the Lord's words seem to set aside that the Christ is David's Son. Yet we can plainly see this is not so. His question about His personal glory is meant to awaken deeper, higher, greater thoughts… If He is David's Lord, He is his Son too. If He is the Root of David, He is also his Offspring (Rev. 22:16)… The One who is both his Son and his Lord secures the sure mercies God promised in David's line.

Toward the end of the chapter (vv. 39-44) our Lord raises the great question of His own person, and of the position He was about to take. It was not the throne of David, but the throne of God. Was not He Himself, David's Son, owned as his Lord by David? The whole of Christianity depends on the person and position of Christ… He humbled Himself as man in suffering. As man He is exalted to the glory of God on high.

He put a question that baffles them: "David thus calls Him Lord, so how is He his son?" They were baffled. No one can answer that question without seeing the Person of Christ, the precious mystery of the God-man. Is it not a sad and terrible thing that you have sent the Lord to the right hand of His Father? He waits there until His enemies are made His footstool. You will say, "He has gone there to help me, a poor sinner." Yes, but you have sent Him there too.

To the believer no truth is simpler, and none more precious. The Christ is a man yet God, son of David yet David's Lord, the root and the offspring of David. He came to die, yet He is the living and eternal God. The grace of His humiliation hangs on the dignity of His own person. So does the value of His atonement, and the glory brought to God by the kingdom He will take and display as Son of Man.

Before Man and before God. — Now, free from the attacks of the disputants, He turned to address His disciples. For the rest of that day He spoke to them (Luke 20:45 — 21:36). First He warned them against the scribes. Then He commended a poor widow for her offering to the treasury of God. God's estimate of men's actions and man's estimate may be, and often are, very different.

The religious leaders questioned the Lord, and the Lord questioned them. Those questions exposed the ignorant folly of their opposition to the truth. So in verses 45 to 47, in the hearing of all the people, the Lord gave a solemn warning. He warned about men who claim to be the highest authorities of learning. Notice that although all the people could hear this, He spoke straight to His disciples. Believers should not let men's grand claims fool them.

Mark and Luke only touch on the question. Mark treats it as a falsifying of service, Luke on moral ground, for the instruction of disciples. Anything specially Jewish, whether in title or in forms and habits, disappears. What Mark and Luke record is not loving service but selfishness and hypocrisy — all the more deadly because it profanes God's name.

Everyone was now hushed by the wisdom of Him who spoke as no man ever spoke. Despite the applause of the scribes, He goes on to teach His disciples on their own. He begins with a warning against those scribes — though perhaps a faithful few stood among them.

Compare Matthew 23 with Luke 20:45-47, and you see the difference at once. In Luke the Spirit uses three verses to set the scribes aside on moral ground. Matthew sets out their whole position in the religious order of that time: the place they held as long as the law of Moses stood, and their guilt before God in that place.

Then He looked up. Here were some of these rich men making a show of putting their money into the temple treasury. Among them came a poor widow, putting in her two small coins. We must not let the break of the chapters separate in our minds these opening verses from the closing two of Luke 20. The widow was probably one of those whose "house" had been devoured. Yet instead of complaining, she put her last two coins into the temple treasury.

So in verses 45 to 47, with all the people listening, the Lord gave a solemn warning about men who claim to be the highest authorities of learning. Notice that although all the people could hear this, He spoke directly to His disciples. Believers must not let men's high claims fool them. The scribes wore long robes to draw attention to themselves, and men's religions copy this today. They loved to be recognised wherever the people gathered. All of this was empty vanity, a thin cover over the fact that they did not know God's Word, did not know how He governs, and did not know His grace. How different was the precious character of the lowly, faithful Son of Man! Being the eternal Son of God, He was entitled to every honour, yet He sought none at all from man.

These men love display — the "long robes"; public recognition — "greetings in the marketplaces"; religious rank — "the best seats in the synagogues"; social standing — "the places of honor at feasts". They push themselves forward, even at the cost of widows. They also make a show of religion, when "for a pretense" they "make long prayers." How solemn are the Lord's words: "They will receive the greater condemnation." The greater the pretension, the greater the judgment.

The teaching of the scribes fell far short, and their ways were low and bad as well. They loved the honour of men, and religious honour most of all. So they wanted the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honour at feasts. They chased after everything that added to their comfort and honour in this world.

It was all for the eye of men. At feasts — the social circle. In synagogues — the religious circle. In markets — the business circle. In every one of them they wanted the chief place, as Rabbis and Masters. The disciple of Christ is to be the exact opposite of all this, so let us take it to heart. The humbling of such men is only a matter of time.

Matthew devotes a long chapter to the scribes' position, their complete failure, and the stern judgment waiting for them from God — men whose religion was all outward form. Mark and Luke only touch on the matter. Mark treats it as a falsifying of service, Luke on moral ground, for the teaching of disciples. Whatever is specially Jewish, in title or in forms and habits, drops out of sight. What Mark and Luke record is not loving service but selfishness and hypocrisy, and it is all the worse because it dishonours God's name.

We also never read of the ministers of Christ — evangelists, pastors or teachers — wearing any special collar or clothes. These departures from New Testament simplicity, in dress or in title, come from pagan sources. Everyone who puts the word of the Lord first should avoid them.

Greed was another evil principle tied to that arrogance — a greed with no pity even for widows. Israel's leaders should have cared for them. Instead they devoured their houses; that is, they made themselves rich at the widows' expense. At the same time their long public prayers were a show, meant to impress those same people.

They devour widows' houses — that is, they take advantage even of people's sorrows, which left those people more completely under their influence. Along with this there was a great show of religion: they made long prayers as a pretence.

Once they had gained the leading position, they used it to make themselves rich at the expense of widows, the most defenceless group in the community. Getting power and money was the whole aim and purpose of their religion. They followed "the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing" (2 Peter 2:15); and there are far too many in our day who still walk that evil road.

What is more, they used their position to rob the poor and defenceless widow. They covered this outrage with a parade of long prayers. So they would receive a severer judgment. Long prayers may impress the crowd, but they did not impress the Lord! Let us remember this and avoid them ourselves. We dare to say that no one with deep desire, truly aware of God's presence, can wander about in a maze of words. As Ecclesiastes 5:2 shows, his words must be few.

The exposure of the leaders is followed by the Lord's warning against people who made a great show of religion, but whose one motive was to exalt themselves. Such people love display — "long robes"; public recognition — "greetings in the marketplaces"; religious standing — "the best seats in the synagogues"; social status — "the places of honor at feasts"; self-advancement, even at the expense of widows; and religious show, when "for a pretense" they "make long prayers." How solemn are the Lord's words: "They will receive the greater condemnation." The greater the show, the greater the judgment.

When the Bible was translated into English, the word "damnation" was used more loosely than it is now. "Damnation" is used often in the English New Testament for judgment, as in Matthew 23:14; Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47… Now, even if this "judgment" is everlasting condemnation, the word still means judgment.

They were hypocrites of the worst kind, using religion as a cloak to cover their self-seeking and greed. He unmasked them and pronounced their doom. He did not speak of a longer damnation, as though judgment were limited by time and not eternal. But He did speak of greater damnation, showing that judgment will differ in its severity.

We must not let the chapter break separate these opening verses in our minds from the last two verses of Luke 20. The widow was likely one of those whose "house" had been devoured. Yet instead of complaining, she put her last two small coins into the temple treasury. In these circumstances her gift was a great one, and the Lord said so. She went to the very limit; she gave everything she had.

Part of the temple was called "the treasury." It held the things set apart for the Lord, such as the gold, silver, and the objects of brass and iron taken from Jericho (Joshua 6:19). The people also handed in their freewill offerings at "the treasury" (Mark 12:41, 43). On one occasion the Lord spoke to the people "in the treasury, as He taught in the temple." This was no doubt in the outer part, where He could watch the people bringing in their gifts. Luke 21:1; John 8:20.

Then follows the judgment on the scribes, very briefly. Their hypocrisy was selfish: they devour widows' houses, and for a show they make long prayers. In contrast, the Lord's estimate of real devotedness is the widow's mites (Luke 21:1-4). Mark notes it as the service of faith, and so brings it into his Gospel of service. Luke shows it as a question of the heart's state and trust in God.

The Lord's eye saw the motive behind this offering. He read the action as He alone could read it: "Truly, I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on." He judged rightly. He did not judge by what she gave, but by what she kept — and that was nothing!

The difference between giving one's living and giving one's surplus is obvious. When self is satisfied, a person may pay God compliments with presents, and even make that serve self. But the woman who gives her living gives herself, wholly devoted to God, and depends on God; the whole is in action towards God, in devotion and in faith.

The widow expressed her devotion to God by putting her two mites into the collection for the upkeep of the temple building. Yet the Lord goes on to foretell that the building will be totally destroyed. The presence of the Lord had already displaced it. God was in Christ, not in Herod's temple. In her understanding the widow was, as we would say, behind the times; yet this did not spoil the Lord's approval of her gift. He does appreciate whole-hearted devotion, even when the person showing it does not yet fully understand. This should be a great comfort to us.

It is a lovely picture of devotedness in the widow. How much lovelier to see Him who gave her the faith and drew out her love, admiring and so richly valuing the fruit of His own grace! May He say the same of our wealth toward God in the coming day, when money and every false standard will have disappeared for ever.

It is worth thinking about this every time we are called to give to the Lord's cause. Remember, as someone puts the box or the basket into my hand, that "Jesus is sitting opposite the treasury." His holy eye rests, not on the purse, but on the heart. He weighs, not the amount, but the motive. If the heart is right, the amount will be right, in His judgment.

Then follows the judgment — very briefly — on the scribes. In contrast with their selfish hypocrisy ("who devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayers"), the Lord's measure of real devotion is the widow's mites. Mark notices it as the service of faith, and so brings it into his Gospel of service. Luke shows it as a question of the heart's state and trust in God.

The widow was probably one of those whose "house" had been devoured. Instead of complaining, she cast her last two mites into the temple treasury. Under these circumstances her gift was truly a great one, and the Lord pronounced it to be so. She went to the utmost limit; casting in her all.

To speak of this incident under the heading of "The Widow's Mite" is clearly incorrect. The widow did not contribute her mite; she gave both her mites — all that she had.

Why does the Spirit take such care to say "two mites, which make a farthing"? Why not be content to say, "She threw in a farthing"? That would never do. It would miss the real point of exquisite beauty. If she had had it all in one piece, she must have either given all or nothing. Having it in two, she had the option of keeping half for her own living. Most of us would call it extraordinary devotion to give half of all we had in the world to the Lord's cause. But this poor widow had a whole heart for God.

God does not go by the amount you give. He judges not by what you hand over, but by what you keep back for self. In this case it was nothing — she gave all. Those who gave out of their abundance kept the greater part for themselves. The test of generosity is not what you give, but what you keep. Much kept back for self-enjoyment proves how little you really give. But when nothing is left, and all goes into the treasury of God, there is the true working of divine love and faith.

The difference between giving one's living and one's surplus is obvious. One may, when self is satisfied, pay God compliments with presents, and make it serve self. But she who gives her living gives herself. She is wholly devoted to God, and she depends on God. The whole of her is in action towards God, in devotion and in faith. The two mites were the most perfect expression of this. Need was there, and everything that could hinder it, while the applause of men and the pride of the donor could find no place.

The widow expressed her devotion to God by casting her two mites into the collection for the upkeep of the temple. Yet the Lord goes on to foretell its total destruction. Already it was displaced by the presence of the Lord. God was in Christ, not in Herod's temple. In her understanding the widow was, as we would say, behind the times. Yet this did not spoil the Lord's approval of her gift. He does appreciate whole-hearted devotion, even when it is not expressed with full understanding. This should be a great comfort to us.

It is good to think about this every time we are asked to give to the Lord's cause. As the box or the basket comes into my hand, remember that Jesus is sitting opposite the treasury. His holy eye rests, not upon the purse, but upon the heart. He weighs, not the amount, but the motive. If the heart is right, the amount will be right, according to His judgment.

Then He looked up. Some of these rich men were making a show of putting their money into the temple treasury. Among them came a poor widow, putting in her two small coins. We must not let the chapter break separate these opening verses in our minds from the closing two of Luke 20. The widow was probably one of those whose "house" had been devoured. Yet instead of complaining, she put her last two coins into the temple treasury. In those circumstances her gift was truly a great one, and the Lord said so. She went to the very limit and gave everything she had.

God does not go by the amount given; He judges not by what is contributed, but by what is kept behind for self. In this case it was nothing — all was given. Those who gave out of their plenty kept the greater part for themselves. The test of generosity is not what is given, but what is left. The much that is kept for self-enjoyment is the proof of how little is given. But when nothing is left, and all is cast into the treasury of God, there is the true working of divine love and faith. There is what God values. It expresses not only generous giving, but complete confidence in Himself.

Did you ever notice how she was carrying all she had to live on? Why does the Spirit take such care to say "two small copper coins, which make a penny"? Why not just say, "She threw in a penny"? That would never do. It would not have brought out the real beauty of the moment — the true touch of whole-hearted devotedness. If she had had it all in one piece, she must have given either all or nothing. Having it in two, she had the option of keeping half for her own living.

Never were coins so wrongly spoken about as these two mites. Someone asks a rich man rolling in his thousands to give to some good cause. He writes a cheque for £5 and says with an easy smile to the one collecting, "Well, here is the widow's mite." Is that so? The widow did not give one mite, but two, and that was all she had. The widow's mite would be half of the rich man's fortune; the two mites, everything he owned. The Lord's praise of this poor widow is very cheering to those who can spare only a little. He values such wholehearted giving.

All the wealth that supported the outward service of God counted for nothing. The Lord looked at the real devoted love of heart there was toward Him and His service. There is much still to learn from this passage. A system may be very evil, a system now judged, and a sincere soul may serve it in a way that is fully acceptable. The Lord does not judge at all according to the system. He judges by the principles of righteousness and grace that mark that soul off from the system — the same principles by which He judged and condemned the system itself. He knows how to separate out the intention of the individual and own it.

It is a lovely picture of devotedness in the widow. How much lovelier to see Him who gave her the faith and drew out her love! He is admiring and so richly valuing the fruit of His own grace. May He have occasion to speak in the same way of our wealth toward God in the day that is coming. In that day money and every false measure will have disappeared for ever.

We must not let the chapter break separate these opening verses from the closing two of Luke 20. The widow was probably one of those whose "house" had been devoured. Yet instead of complaining, she cast her last two mites into the temple treasury. In her situation her gift was a great one indeed, and the Lord said so. She went to the utmost limit; casting in her all.

Then comes the judgment on the scribes — but only briefly. Set against their selfish hypocrisy ("who devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayers"), the Lord's estimate of real devotedness is the widow's mites. Mark notices it as the service of faith, and so brings it into his Gospel of service. Luke shows it as a question of the heart's state and trust in God.

God does not go by the amount given; He judges not by what you contribute, but by what you keep back for yourself. In her case she kept back nothing — she gave it all. Those who gave out of their abundance kept the greater part for themselves. The test of generosity is not what you give, but what you keep. Keeping much for your own enjoyment proves how little you really gave. But when nothing is kept and everything goes into the treasury of God, that is the true working of Divine love and faith.

Why does the Spirit take such care to say "two mites, which make a farthing"? Why not be content to say, "She threw in a farthing"? Ah! this would never do. It would not have brought out the real point of exquisite beauty — the true touch of whole-hearted devotedness. If she had had it all in one piece, she must have either given all or nothing. Having it in two, she had the option of keeping half for her own living. Most of us would call it extraordinary devotion to give half of everything we own to the Lord's cause. But this poor widow had a whole heart for God.

"Two mites which make a farthing": really about three quarters of a farthing! But its value, as our Lord declares, was not the market value — not what it could buy. It was intangible and spiritual. The two mites were all the money she had: "all she had to live on." She had put her heart in with it: a heart that kept nothing back from God. Its value was the value of sacrifice, and One who was Himself the Great Sacrifice could not fail to appreciate it.

The widow expressed her devotion to God by casting her two mites into the collection for the upkeep of the temple building. Yet the Lord goes on to foretell its total destruction. The presence of the Lord had already displaced it. God was in Christ, not in Herod's temple. In her understanding the widow was, as we should say, behind the times; yet this did not spoil the Lord's approval of her gift. He does value whole-hearted devotion, even when the person showing it does not fully understand. This should be a great comfort to us.

The widow's devotedness is a lovely picture. How much lovelier to see Him who gave her the faith and drew out her love, admiring and so warmly valuing the fruit of His own grace! May He speak like that of our wealth toward God in the coming day, when money and every false estimate will have disappeared for ever!

Wellhausen rightly points out that the question, as Luke's Gospel gives it, came from a wider circle than the disciples alone. Verse 7 bears this out. There the Lord is called "Teacher", while the disciples in Luke's Gospel usually say "Lord" or "Master".

Herod's magnificent temple was still not finished, though it had been going up for nearly fifty years. It grew under their eyes, the glory of Israel, despite the murderous hands that built it. The temple still drew them.

It was all on a magnificent scale... Herod was not God's man to build Him a house, nor were the leaders of the Jews fit men to carry on His worship.

How little man sees as God does! The temple was God's house, but men gave more honour to the house than to its Lord: in fact it had become virtually their house.

They saw the building, but not with the eye of Christ... He had seen it, and all that surrounded it, with the eye of God. Costly and beautiful beyond compare as it was, He had written its judgment... But the disciples still eyed the beauty of the stones. So Jesus, in patient grace, had to write out the doom of that place again — they had asked, and their eyes could not see as His did.

The widow showed her devotion to God by dropping her two coins into the collection for the upkeep of the temple building. Yet the Lord goes on to foretell its total destruction. The presence of the Lord had already replaced it. God was in Christ, not in Herod's temple. In her understanding the widow was, as we would say, behind the times. Yet this did not spoil the Lord's approval of her gift. He does value whole-hearted devotion, even when it is not expressed with full understanding.

In this Gospel the Lord's account of the sorrows of Jerusalem is tied much more closely to one plain fact: the judgment on the nation and the change of dispensation. It differs greatly from Matthew 24, which refers fully to what will happen at the end... So Luke plainly sets out the siege and destruction by Titus, and the times of the Gentiles.

Herod's Temple was destroyed... In A.D. 70 Titus, the Roman general, tried to save such a wonderful building, but the divine word had decreed its destruction. The Lord's word was fulfilled to the last detail — not one stone remained on another.

Fixing our thoughts on the house, in order to draw attention to it, is a snare. The building often becomes more than the Builder, and the house more than the One who lives in it... So beware of any teaching that makes more of the house than of its Occupant.

A temple, however splendid, has no value when its God is disowned. Jehovah was there in the person of Jesus, and the nation did not know Him or recognise Him. Where He was recognised, He was rejected. He leaves the temple in sorrow, and whatever Jehovah abandons is truly desolate.

The temple was God's house, but people gave more honour to the house than to its Lord. In practice it had become their house.

They saw the building, but not with the eye of Christ... He had seen it, and everything around it, with the eye of God. Expensive as it was, and beautiful beyond compare, He had written its judgment... The disciples still gazed at the beauty of the stones, and Jesus, in patient grace, had to write the doom of that place a second time, because they asked and because their eyes could not see.

The widow showed her devotion to God by putting her two small coins into the collection for the upkeep of the temple building. Yet the Lord goes on to foretell its total destruction. The presence of the Lord had already displaced it. God was in Christ, not in Herod's temple... He does value whole-hearted devotion, even when the way it is expressed shows less than full understanding.

Luke is the only Gospel writer who notes that the disciples spoke to the Lord about the gifts offered to God that decorated the temple. All three writers mention its fine stones or buildings.

Here the question is about the time of the overthrow of the temple, and the sign of it. The answer falls into two parts. Verses 8-24 give the events leading up to the Romans destroying Jerusalem and trampling it down. Verses 25-33 give the appearing of the Son of Man at the end of the age.

Titus gave strict orders that the Temple, that magnificent building... should be preserved. Which would stand: the prophecy of the lowly Jesus, or the commands of the domineering Titus? One was no longer on earth to enforce His wishes, as people would say. The other was on the very spot, with all the power of a victorious army behind him.

It is reported that the emperor Julian, who had first embraced Christianity and then rejected it, commissioned many Jews to return and rebuild the temple, to prove Christ's prophecy false. When they found it so badly damaged, they decided to pull it down completely and build it again. So they fulfilled Christ's prophecy to the letter, by taking every stone away.

He foretold the destruction of the Temple, and it happened just as He said. He foretold the terrors of the siege of Jerusalem, and it was the worst in history for bloodshed... Could prophecy be more exact and wonderful? It proves beyond doubt that Christ and the Scriptures are inspired.

The natural, earthbound thoughts of men then come out in another direction. Some drew attention to the decorations of the temple with its attractive and expensive stones and ornaments. How little man sees as God does! The temple was God's house, but men gave more honour to the house than to its Lord: in fact it had become virtually their house. The Lord pronounced solemn judgment upon it: there would not be left one stone upon another.

In Matthew, Jesus had just spoken of the Jews' house being left desolate. He had also spoken of His own departure, until they should receive Him as the one coming "in the name of the Lord." Then someone points Him to the temple, and He foretells its ruin. So the disciples ask, "When will these things be? And what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" Here the leading thought is the "end of the age," and the Lord's reappearance after His predicted withdrawal. In Luke, however, Jesus has not been speaking of His departure or return, but simply foretelling the overthrow of the temple.

All three tell us He was asked about the desolation of the temple. But Matthew and Mark add questions about what is still future, while Luke keeps to questions about what is now past. Luke tells us the questions were about the beginning of Jerusalem's troubles, not the end of them. There is no real difficulty here. All these questions were doubtless put to Him. But each writer records the ones that match the Lord's reply, as the Spirit guided him.

Notice that the Holy Spirit inspired the writer to drop the question about the coming of the Son of man and the completion of the age. As with Mark, they ask when the destruction of the temple will be, and the sign of its beginning. The Lord fully replies, but as usual gives much more... On the other hand, only here do we get clear light on the coming siege and capture of Jerusalem by the Romans. Only here do we read of its later shameful subjection, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

In verse 20 He says: "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near." Here is the plain reply to the only part of the disciples' question which Luke records. Armies surrounding Jerusalem would be the sign that its desolation was near.

This coming destruction shows that Christ had not come to establish His kingdom. Yet they asked Him when these things would take place. People usually want to know the order of events. They are not concerned about the moral issues behind those events. They asked for a sign, little realising that present moral and spiritual conditions matter most in God's future judgments.

"Watch out," He says, "people will be promising you rest before rest comes." ... The Lord here anticipates the very same thing. He says, "Now, do not mistake. The time cannot draw near until there has been judgment." And that is what I am bold to say to the world now. You are not going to have a kingdom — the time of glory is not drawing near; nor will it, until judgment has purged the earth.

Notice how the Lord presents the whole matter. He does not give a mass of details to feed our curiosity. He gives predictions that sound a note of warning and carry instructions of the greatest importance to His disciples. He says everything in a way that appeals to our consciences and not our curiosity.

You never find this exact warning against false Christs in the letters of the apostles. The apostles wrote those letters to Christians, and no Christian could be fooled by a man's claim to be Christ… These disciples were, as the godly remnant of the nation, looking for the Messiah to bring in glory. So the Lord warns them not to believe anyone who rises up among them saying, "I am Christ."… The rejection of the true Christ lays them open to the reception of a false Christ. Our Lord had warned them of this: "I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him."… But take the letter of John, and what do you find there? "Beloved, do not believe every spirit." The great mark of the Church is the presence of the Holy Spirit, and the deceit we have to watch against is false spirits, not false Christs, though there are many antichrists.

There are only two real differences. Luke had events only a few years away in view, and he records our Lord as saying that "the time draws near." Matthew, who points to the later fulfilment of the prophecy, leaves these words out. Matthew also says the false Christ "will deceive many," which points to the great national falling away at the end of the age. Luke gives the warning but records no such prediction. The Christians in Jerusalem were in fact not deceived by the claims of the impostors who arose at the time of the revolt against Rome.

The Lord treats it as deceit to say "the time draws near." Yet the apostle puts us under those very words (Luke 21:8; James 5:8). After certain signs or events, the Lord tells the remnant that their expectation is near. The apostle tells us that ours is always near.

In A.D. 131 a fanatical deceiver, Bar-chobab, rose up, presenting himself as the promised Messiah. How well the Lord gave His warning!

History has proved how necessary such a warning was. There are almost countless prophetic deceptions today, and they have multiplied fast since the 1800s. Many have already come claiming to be Christ. Some of them do not use this exact title, yet they lift themselves into the place that belongs to the Lord Jesus alone. Many have been deceived by them.

The Lord did not satisfy mere curiosity. He urged them to be careful not to be deceived. In the matter of prophecy there are countless deceptions. If we are deceived, we are to blame. God is not deceived, and honest communion with Him, in submission to His Word, will keep us safe. We have seen in our own days the truth of what the Lord says. Many would come in His name claiming to be the Messiah, and thousands have fallen for them despite the Lord's plain warning.

They are not to fear the violent movements of men. They are not to imagine that these upheavals mean the end is coming at once — for that is what "by and by" means here.

The Lord first gives a general sketch of the ruin about to follow. Moral improvement, truth spreading everywhere, peace for mankind — for now these were misleading dreams. They should be on their guard against them. ... His disciples were not to be disturbed or deceived. Such evil things must be because the King was rejected, and the end is not yet. Instead of learning war no more as when He comes in His kingdom, nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom.

Besides the false Christs, there would be political disturbances, restlessness, and actual wars and rumours of wars. These would attract attention and mark the state of things on earth. But the disciples were not to be troubled. All this would come to pass, but these were no signs of His coming — the end was not yet. So the Lord is providing what would guide and strengthen His witnesses, keeping them calm and steady in their places. He gives instruction that would make them calm in service, not agitated by circumstances or by false hopes... They might still serve quietly on.

As for Luke 21, it is much more historical... So verses 9 to 19 give us the state of things from after the Lord's death until the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem. There is no mention of the abomination of desolation here.

In these earlier verses (8-19) the Lord dwells on the dangers, duties, and trials of the disciples before Titus sacked Jerusalem. They were especially to beware of a pretended deliverer, and of the cry that the time of deliverance was at hand. Nor were they to be terrified by wars or commotions, any more than seduced by fair promises. These things must first happen, but the end not immediately.

Wars and commotions would come (v. 9), as they have, but this is not enough to signify the end. Nations and kingdoms are set against one another. That shows the gospel will not slowly change the world for the better, as some have imagined... How well the Lord knew and fully declared that the gospel would not convert the world. His words here are a rebuke to those who have cherished such futile hopes.

There are sure signs that we are in the last days. But these are not the "wars and tumults," the "earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences," or the "terrors and great signs from heaven" of Luke 21... Some have allowed their imagination to run riot over such things and over sensational events in the political world.

Luke 21:9. — Down to verse 11 we have what Matthew and Mark call the "beginning of birth pains."

So we read of "the beginning of sorrows," announced in advance by nation rising against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, with the famines, plagues and earthquakes that come with them. These things are not unique to that one moment. Yet they still come before it, and so they give a clear warning of worse to follow.

Luke refers to the state of things around the siege of Jerusalem by Titus. Matthew refers to the final troubles of the Jews. The two are clearly much alike. The features that long ago became history in the earlier events will appear again in the later ones. False Christs, wars, commotions, and frightening natural events are common to both periods. So in the first few verses (Luke 21:8-11; Matt. 24:4-8) there is only slight variation between the reports.

The new age has not yet come, and it cannot while the Lord Jesus is away. Whatever men promise and hope for, all their scheming will not succeed. All their expectations will prove false. "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom" — that is, a state quite the opposite of what is promised for the kingdom.

Nations and kingdoms are hostile to one another. This shows there would be no gradual change for the better in the world through the gospel, as some have foolishly imagined. Instead there would be a sharp increase in alarming signs — earthquakes, famines, plagues. The Lord knew well, and declared fully, that the gospel would not convert the world. His words here are a rebuke to those who have cherished such futile hopes.

But in each case His warnings arm His disciples beforehand. They must not let false Christs deceive them for a moment, or follow them. They must not fear the violent movements of men, or think that such upheavals mean the end is coming at once.

Here the Lord Jesus gives us a very direct and immediate picture of the destruction of Jerusalem, which was then close at hand. Matthew passes over the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. He fixes attention on what will take place at the end of the age. Luke gives us this last event too — at least he closes with the future crisis. But the main point in the central part of Luke is to point out the destruction that was then at hand. It was a distinct state of things, and a distinct time, from the circumstances of the Son of man's day.

Josephus, the historian, tells us that a star or a comet with a long tail shaped like a sword hung over the city for a whole year. Another sign was that on one occasion chariots and troops of soldiers were seen among the clouds, rushing to and fro. On another occasion a great light shone around the altar for about half an hour and then died out. The gate of the inner court of the temple, made of brass and so heavy that it took twenty men to shut it, opened by itself. This was taken to mean that the temple would no longer be protected from the enemy. These events may seem like fables, but the historian declares that many people witnessed them, and Tacitus confirms these signs.

The disciples were not to be troubled; all this would come to pass, they were no signs of His coming, the end was not yet. So the Lord is caring for what would guide and strengthen His witnesses, keeping them calm and steady in their places. He gives them the kind of teaching that would keep them calm in service, not stirred up by circumstances or by false hopes.

You can trace such events through the whole course of world history. But they have been rare, not frequent, while the text plainly implies they will happen often, and probably in different places at the same time. How often has a Christian, on hearing of an event of this kind, said, "Surely we must now be in the time of Matthew 24!" Yet the very fact that it draws comment as a rare event shows that we are not yet in that time. It is fair to conclude that the prophecy means famines, plagues and earthquakes to a degree and over an area beyond anything known before.

As a symbol, earthquakes point to an upheaval of the lower masses of society. This overthrows the social system, either in part or completely.

I have little doubt that the scene will be as mixed as the language. There will be terrible signs really given. Besides that, there will be a real breaking up of all existing powers, and terror in every heart… But there will be more than a revolution. It will be an overthrow and upsetting of all visible and organised powers.

These happen under the providential government of God. Through them He keeps making Himself heard and shows His power… Sadly, people too often treat such judgments as natural events or mere accidents and disasters. They see no God in them, and soon forget them. These judgments should warn men. A light shower often falls before a storm, and in the same way these frequent judgments are only the forerunners of the great storm of the wrath of God that will fall on this guilty world.

Mark, as well as Luke, gives special weight to the persecutions the disciples would have to endure. Luke says these persecutions take place before the signs among the nations. They are, therefore, persecutions of the early Christian days. The book of Acts shows us they happened as soon as the new message of salvation was preached.

Jerusalem's troubles began with the siege of the city by the Roman general Titus, and they will not end till the times of the Gentiles have run their course. At the beginning of those troubles, and in their closing days too, there will be real disciples of Christ on earth. They will have to bear testimony in the face of direct opposition from their countrymen the Jews.

In Luke's gospel the prophecy relates to the events before the Roman army destroyed the temple and the city. Here "the gospel of the kingdom" is not named. And the text does not say the persecution comes especially from the Gentiles. It comes from Jews and Gentiles alike. The difference is important. It helps to show that the prophecy in Matthew relates, not to the events before the siege of Jerusalem, but to the troubles before the day of the Lord — the same period the book of Revelation speaks of.

The disciples would go to prison and stand before Gentile kings and rulers for the sake of the name of Christ. This became true very soon after the Lord Jesus returned to glory. But the Lord used this persecution in a way men did not expect. He made it a testimony to Himself and to the gospel of His grace… We see this in Peter and John (Acts 4:13-14); in Stephen (Acts 6:8-10; 7:1-60); and in Paul (Acts 22:1-21; 24:24-25; 26:1-31).

To be Christ's is enough to stir up the world's anger. Circumstances may be needed to call it out, but it is there… The world hates us because of Him, not Him because of us. It is not our faults, then, that are the true cause, but His grace and moral excellence, His divine nature and glory.

The Lord does make predictions. He foretells (1) the rise of false Christs, (2) wars and unrest, along with strange events in the physical world around them, (3) the coming of bitter opposition and persecution, even to death. But in each case His warnings arm His disciples in advance… They are to accept the persecution as an occasion for testimony. And when they testify, they are not to rely on a prepared defence, but on supernatural wisdom given to them when the moment arrives.

The word translated "turn out" appears in one other place in the New Testament in just this sense. That is Luke 21:13, where the Lord Himself tells His disciples that when men lay their hands on them, and deliver them up to synagogues and prisons, "it shall turn out to you for a testimony." You will recall how much Luke was with Paul. We may suppose he had told him of these words of our Lord Jesus. If that is the case, Paul also had the Lord's own words to rest on for the certainty he speaks of. And what a blessed certainty His words are!

When they were whipped and brought before councils and governors and kings, all this should become a testimony to them. It is God's way of presenting the gospel of the kingdom to kings and princes. And it does so without changing the character of that gospel, without adapting it to the world, and without mixing up the Lord's people with the world's ways and its false greatness. What is more, circumstances like these made their testimony far more visible than being linked with the great ones of the earth would have done.

The Lord then turns to the duties and the circumstances of His disciples before that hour... He goes into much more detail about their ministry during that period. He encourages them, and promises them the help they will need. Persecution should turn to them for a testimony.

The disciples would be imprisoned and brought before Gentile kings and rulers for the sake of the name of Christ. This became true very soon after the Lord Jesus returned to glory. But the Lord used this persecution in a way that men did not expect, for a testimony to Himself and to the gospel of His grace... We see this in Peter and John (Acts 4:13-14); in Stephen (Acts 6:8-10; 7:1-60); and in Paul on various occasions (Acts 22:1-21; 24:24-25; 26:1-31).

In Luke, the persecution comes before the fighting and unrest mentioned in the earlier verses. Our Lord's words are, "But before all these things they will lay their hands on you." This distinction agrees with the facts. The great persecution of the Christians by the Jews was not during the civil wars that ended in the fall of Jerusalem. It came before them, and this is what Luke is referring to. On the other hand, the great persecution of the faithful Jews by the Gentiles, which is what Matthew speaks of, will happen during the terrible wars and upheavals before the Lord's glorious appearing.

In each case His warnings arm His disciples in advance... They are to accept the persecution as an occasion for testimony. When they testify, they are not to rely on a prepared defence, but on supernatural wisdom given to them when the moment arrives.

We need the force of the words, "All these things shall turn to you for a testimony." I was told a church was in great difficulties. I said I would take heart, because these are just the kind of difficulties Peter and Paul had. I would rejoice in them as something that would help the Church through the wilderness.

They are to accept the persecution as a chance to bear witness. And as they bear witness, they are not to rely on a prepared defence. They are to rely on wisdom from God, which He will give them when the moment comes.

But if believers were arrested and had to face the Jewish council or the magistrates, they were not to decide in advance how to answer the charges, or what to say. The same Spirit of God who empowered Christ would empower them and guide their words. For the grace of God is greater than the strongest opposition of hatred.

All of this applies strictly to the state of things before the Romans besieged Jerusalem, both in the world and among the disciples. Any fair-minded reader must see it. Luke alone shows the grace of the Lord in giving His own a mouth and wisdom that goes beyond the cunning and power of every enemy. In Mark they are to say "whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit."

Alone he could face his opponents, and defeat them. "They were not able to withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking" (Acts 6:10). They did not convince him, and they could not silence him. They could not resist the wisdom he showed, or the Holy Spirit by whom he spoke. The Lord had promised, "I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict" (Luke 21:15). And the writer who preserved that promise here tells us how truly it was fulfilled. One man could confound a multitude.

This was a special promise given to the disciples. We see it fulfilled again and again, in a striking way, in the Acts of the Apostles. But there is nothing to show that such will be the case with the Jewish believers in the last days. They will be silenced, driven out and almost destroyed. Only the sudden and glorious appearing of Christ will save them from being wiped out completely. In Matthew there is nothing at all matching this part of the prophecy as Luke records it.

Whenever it can be done, a person should think about and study the subject he expects to speak on. It is no mark of spirituality to take no thought about how or what we will speak. We do not believe that is a correct use of the Scripture. The Lord gave that promise in a very different setting. There He assures His disciples that they will never be deserted when they face kings and rulers for His name's sake... The same holds when someone has no way of knowing in advance what he will speak about, or when an unexpected opening for the gospel comes.

There was no need for them to plan their defence beforehand. The Holy Spirit would give them the words to speak in the hour of need. The same was true of their ministry. They could rely on the help of the Spirit of God, whether they were making known the gospel of the grace of God, or opening up and applying the truth to God's people.

But before these things, the disciples would suffer bitter persecution. It would come from the hatred of religious Jews. They would go to prison and stand before Gentile kings and rulers because of the name of Christ. This became true very soon after the Lord Jesus returned to glory. But the Lord used this persecution in a way men did not expect, for a testimony to Himself and to the gospel of His grace.

Luke alone shows the grace of the Lord. He gives His own a mouth and wisdom greater than the cunning and power of all their adversaries. In Mark they are to speak "whatever shall be given you; for you are not the speakers but the Holy Spirit."

God does provide the weapons with which, if called upon, His people may meet those opposed to Him. The Lord promised to provide them (Luke 21:15). So Stephen proved that the Lord keeps His word. His enemies could not resist the wisdom and spirit with which he spoke (Acts 6:10). In this he does not stand alone, for the Lord still cares for His people.

Numbers were on their side. He is the only one named as fighting bravely for the truth. But their numbers did not overawe him... They could not convince him. They could not silence him. And they could not resist the wisdom he showed, or the Holy Spirit by whom he spoke. "I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict" (Luke 21:15), had been the Lord's promise. And the evangelist who preserved that promise shows us how completely it came true. One man could confound a multitude.

The leading teachers of Israel's schools of learning might well marvel. They saw "the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men" — untrained in what this world counts as knowledge. They also "recognized that they had been with Jesus."

Wherever possible, one should think about and study the subject he expects to speak on. It is no mark of spirituality to give no thought to how or what we shall speak. Nor do we believe it a correct use of Scripture to expect the Lord to keep a promise He gave in a quite different setting... Here He is assuring His disciples that He will never desert them when they stand before kings and rulers for His name's sake.

People misapply it when they use it of preaching the gospel. It does not refer to any service for the Lord. It was to save the disciples from anxiety at their trial.

This was a special promise to the disciples. We see it fulfilled again and again, in striking ways, in the book of Acts. But nothing shows that the same will be true for Jewish believers in the last days. They will be silenced, banished, and almost destroyed. Only Christ's sudden and glorious appearing will save them from being wiped out completely.

The Lord's words to His apostles in Matthew 10 and Luke 21 will have a special reference to them. They will go out to speak with "a mouth of wisdom" that He will give them.

The prophecy has three subjects. First, the troubles of Jerusalem that came from the Lord's rejection by the Jews. Then the testimony of the disciples that followed that rejection, and guidance for them while they are in their sorrows. Last, the whole thing ends with the Lord's second coming, which will bring deliverance to the city and the nation. Jerusalem's troubles began with the siege of the city by Titus, and they will not end until the times of the Gentiles have run their course. At the start of those troubles, and again in their closing days, there will be real disciples of Christ on earth. They will have to bear witness while their own countrymen the Jews openly oppose them.

The early Christians were not hated by the Gentiles as Gentiles, but by all men, whether Jews or Gentiles. In fact their chief sufferings and persecutions came from the Jews… Luke is foretelling what the early Jewish Christians would suffer at the hands of their own countrymen and closest relatives. His prophecy simply describes what took place soon afterwards… Matthew, however, speaks of a very different persecution. It comes from the Gentile oppressors of the nation, before the Lord's coming in power. So Matthew leaves the family division out.

As long as God is not revealed, people tolerate everything. But when He reveals Himself, man's will rises up against His authority. It rises against the pressure that this revelation puts on a conscience which is not at rest. And the closer the relationship, the greater the hatred. This hatred breaks all the ties of nature.

Many of them would know the deep pain and trial of betrayal by even close relatives, and some would suffer death as martyrs… Yet in the face of such dreadful affliction He told them not a hair of their heads would (eternally) perish. The eternal end was secure. That does not mean none of them would die, for the Lord said some would die as martyrs (v.16).

In Luke 21:16-18 the Lord says their enemies would put some of them to death, yet not a hair of their head would perish. They were all counted. God has all providential power at His disposal.

It seems strange to us to hear, "Some of you shall they cause to be put to death … but there shall not a hair of your head perish."

Yet the hatred against them would be so fierce that it would break through all natural ties. It would turn the strongest affections into the bitterest enmity… Through it all not a hair of their heads would perish. He who has counted them all would give a good account of them. By endurance they would gain their lives, instead of losing them.

Notice that in these verses the Lord traces the world's hatred of His disciples to one thing: they belonged to Him. They were His servants, and the servant is not greater than his Lord. "If they persecuted Me," He said, "they will also persecute you." The world would not hate them because they were law-breakers, or because of anything objectionable in their character, but because the Lord had chosen them out of the world to be His own.

Confessing Christ brings persecution. Spreading only His moral teaching might well be popular with Jews and Gentiles alike. Before Christ came, and ever since, we should expect persecution for righteousness' sake. But notice the step forward from Matthew 5:10 to the next verse. In the first verse, the persecution is "for righteousness' sake." In verse 11 it is plainly for Christ's sake. Here His own honour is at stake.

The revelation of God in the person of Christ, or in the preached word, awakens the enmity of the human heart. As long as God is not revealed, people tolerate everything. But when He reveals Himself, man's will rises up against His authority. It rises against the pressure this revelation puts on a conscience that is not at rest. And the closer the relations are, the greater is the hatred. This hatred breaks all the ties of nature. Brother would give up brother to death, and the father his son. The children would rise up against their parents and put them to death. And all men would hate the disciples for the Saviour's name.

Matthew, speaking of the persecution of the faithful witnesses before Christ's coming, says, "Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake." Believing Jews will suffer this in the last days for their testimony to the coming Messiah. But it is not an accurate account of what the early Christians endured. It was not that the Gentiles hated them as Gentiles. All men hated them, whether Jews or Gentiles. In fact their chief sufferings and persecutions came from the Jews.

All of this applies strictly to what happened before the Romans besieged Jerusalem, both in the world and among the disciples. Any fair mind must see it.

You may speak of religion in a general way — of preachers, of churches, of missions to people who have never heard, of societies for doing good — and be popular. But speak of the Lord Himself, of His precious blood, of the full assurance of salvation, of oneness with Him in heaven, of separation from the world, of standing apart from all its shows and entertainments. Then your friends will quickly grow fewer. Who were the most bitter enemies of the Lord and His servant Paul? The most religious men in Israel. Has the world or human nature changed? We believe not.

The Jewish Council had forbidden them to speak or teach in the name of Jesus. But they obeyed God rather than men, and went on with their blessed work. After a miracle set them free from prison, they were arrested again, beaten, and ordered not to speak in the name of Jesus. Were they disheartened or daunted by what they had to endure? Far from it — they left the Council rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name.

All of this applies strictly to the state of things before the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem, both in the world and among the disciples. Any fair mind must see it. Luke alone shows the grace of the Lord in giving His own a mouth and wisdom beyond the cunning and power of every enemy.

Luke is foretelling what the early Jewish Christians would suffer at the hands of their own countrymen and their nearest relatives. His prophecy simply describes what took place soon afterwards.

God's government does not work now in a way that keeps the righteous from suffering — least of all when they suffer for the name of Christ. But Jehovah watches over him. Not a sparrow falls to the ground apart from our Father. It seems strange to us to hear, "Some of you they will put to death … but not a hair of your head will perish." God's government now is not the public rule that puts down all evil. It is applied to the case of the righteous under and through the power of evil. When Christ appears, evil will be put down. As a rule, those who live peaceably will live in peace. But in a world where Satan has power, the righteous will suffer and have many afflictions — none of them without the watchful care of the Lord. And in some way deliverance will come.

The disciples of the Lord Jesus would in fact be the object of the hatred of all mankind in general. How contrary to their expectations of the arrival of the kingdom! Yet in the face of such dreadful affliction He told them not a hair of their heads would (eternally) perish. The eternal end was secure. This does not mean that none of them would die, for the Lord said some would die as martyrs (v.16). In fact, since then all the disciples have died, but they were to have no fear of the most bitter persecution.

In Luke 21:16-18 the Lord says some of them would be put to death, but not a hair of their head would perish. They were all counted. Providential power is all at God's disposal.

Trusting in the Lord is perfectly sure. A divine and almighty hand secures us. We know from many passages that the Lord may see fit to let us suffer, but not a hair of our head shall perish. When His time has come, the rod of the wicked shall not rest on the lot of the righteous. He may let us suffer for our God, or for His name's sake. But even then it happens according to His own will and power, not according to the will and power of the wicked. All this assumes someone who is walking in His ways.

God's care never fails. It shows itself in the smallest details, and it holds despite all that man may think. God may allow many afflictions to come on those who trust Him, and these too will surely be a blessing.

The word hupomone (from hupomeno, "to sustain") appears once as "enduring" (2 Corinthians 1:6) and as "patient continuance" (Romans 2:7). That fully enters into the thought of the word: it is a "patient endurance" that does not give way under trial and suffering. See Luke 8:15; Luke 21:19… and the phrase "the one who endures to the end," Matthew 10:22 and Matthew 24:13… Romans 15:5 traces it back to its divine source for us. Scripture never applies it to God Himself, because there could be no such testing or pressure for Him. But the Lord Jesus, in the place He has taken as Man, is our perfect example of it, Hebrews 12:2-3 — He "endured" the cross and the hostility of sinners against Himself.

On Luke 21:19: although ktaomai generally means "get," in contrast with kektemai, it is also used for keeping in possession — holding something so as not to lose it. (Acts 4:34; 1 Thessalonians 4:4; Matthew 8:9; Luke 18:12.) It refers directly to being spared, kept by God, saved in the dangers of the mission they had among the Jews.

In Luke 21:19 the Revisers have adopted a reading and a rendering at least questionable. A B are but slender authority for κτήσεσθε, as against κτήσασθε differing only by one letter; and their own rendering of 1 Thessalonians 4:5 sustains the Authorised Version, "possess," against their own "win" here.

The immediate hope would be of preserving life; but it would meet those who might be killed with the fullest and most secure hope. It is the same in Luke 21:19, "gain your lives" (older translations: "gain your souls"), and in Matthew 24:13. The ambiguity there is intentional too.

All this applies strictly to the state of things before the Romans besieged Jerusalem, whether in the world or among the disciples. That must be clear to every fair mind. Luke alone shows the grace of the Lord in giving His own a mouth and wisdom beyond the cunning and power of all their adversaries… Luke also states in broad terms the result of their testimony, which would be true in the highest sense for heaven if they were killed.

Jesus had said, "By your endurance you will gain your lives" (Luke 21:19) — a position of faithfulness while the testimony lasts. There will be a time when God alone will testify of Himself, when no one gives Him any testimony at all. It will be a testimony of vengeance, because man has despised His power and His righteousness.

What can we do with people who let themselves be killed without becoming less joyful — people whom it makes even more joyful? Left to themselves, they are above all our motives. If we oppress them, they possess their souls in perfect joy despite all our opposition. Torments do not conquer them. They find in them only an occasion for bearing a stronger testimony that Christians are beyond our power.

Only Luke has this. So he speaks of armies surrounding the city, which was true then. He does not speak, as Matthew and Mark do, of the abomination of desolation, which can only be proved true in its closing agony. The siege our Lord describes, with all that came out of it, cannot be a future event. What follows it is the humiliating hold on the Jewish capital by one nation after another, until the allotted seasons of Gentile supremacy end.

This is the clear reply to the only part of the disciples' question that Luke records. Jerusalem surrounded by armies was to be the sign that its desolation was near.

When they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies, they could know that its desolation was near. This is still a very different thing from the "abomination of desolation" that Matthew and Mark speak of. That one is tied to the middle of the last week of Daniel, while this one comes between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth week of the same chapter: "And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary" (Dan. 9:26). There is no excuse at all for confusing two things so different, when the gap between them is stated so clearly.

Schmiedel claims that Luke himself, in his own mind, treated Titus's desolation of Jerusalem as the same thing as Daniel's "abomination." That only shows how little that critic understands the plan of Old Testament prophecy. As the Expositor points out, it is typical of Luke that he kept the two apart.

Nothing can be simpler. The prediction is exact. The directions match exactly what the Christians living in the city did when Titus's army approached Jerusalem. There is no call to special haste, and in fact there was no occasion for special haste. Every reader knows what followed. The Christians, warned by this prophecy, left the city. The city was destroyed, and its people were either killed or carried off into slavery.

The Christians, remembering the Lord's warning, left Jerusalem together before the siege closed in. They travelled to Pella, a village beyond the Jordan. There they stayed until Hadrian allowed them to return to the ruins of their ancient city.

Then those who believed the words of Jesus did flee to the mountains, and so escaped the horrors of the siege. Then began the "days of vengeance" for the Jew. They will not stop until everything foretold has come true. Then started the long captivity, which has continued and will continue, with Jerusalem under the feet of the nations, until the times of the Gentiles end. Those times began when God raised up Nebuchadnezzar, who took the throne from the last king of David's line. They will end with the crushing of Gentile rule at the appearing of Christ.